IRLF 


Economic  Study  of  Dairying  on  149 
Farms  in  Broome  County,  New  York 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL   OF 

CORNELL  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


EDWARD  GARDNER  MISNER 


Published  as  Bulletin  409 
Cornell  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  April  1922. 


294 


BULLETIN  409 


the  interest  on  which  amounts  to  $8155.45.  Since  veals  and  bulls  to  be 
sold  are  kept  on  hand  for  only  a  short  time,  no  interest  was  charged  on 
their  value.  The  data  are  given  in  table  13. 

Interest  was  charged  to  the  dairy  enterprise  on  the  investment  in 
forage  for  the  average  length  of  time  the  forage  was  stored  before  it  was 
fed,  and  on  the  investment  in  concentrates  from  the  time  they  were 
paid  for  until  they  were  fed.  On  each  record  this  cost  was  distributed 
to  cows,  heifers,  and  herd  bulls,  according  to  the  numbers  of  animals 
kept  and  the  quantities  of  feed  used.  The  average  total  capital  so  invested 
was  $38,160,  or  about  $256  per  farm.  On  some  farms  keeping  heifers 
and  herd  bulls  the  interest  charge  on  feed  and  supplies  was  so  small  that 
it  was  not  separated.  The  data  are  given  in  table  14: 

TABLE  14.     INTEREST  ON  AVERAGE  VALUE  OF  FEED  AND  SUPPLIES  KEPT  ON  HAND 
FOR  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  AND  172  HERD  BULLS 


All  herds 

Cows 

Heifers 

Herd  bulls 

Average 
value  of 
feed  and 
supplies 
on  hand 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Interest 
at  5 
per  cent 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

$38,160 

149 

$1,908 

149 

$i  ,511.50 

120 

$305.50 

81 

$91  .00 

Miscellaneous  costs 

All  remaining  expenses  were  classed  as  miscellaneous  costs,  and  are 
given  in  table  15.  Of  these,  ice,  veterinary  fees,  medicines  and  disinfec- 
tants, fly  protectors,  whitewash,  and  expenses  for  testing  milk,  were  the 
most  important.  Farmers  having  the  expense  for  milk  testing  estimated 
the  portion  of  this'  expense  that  should  be  charged  to  cows,  to  heifers, 
to  bulls  to  be  sold,  and  to  herd  bulls.  The  same  was  done  with  other 
items  not  wholly  chargeable  to  cows. 

The  average  amount  of  ice  stored  per  cow  was  1949  pounds. 

Returns 

Returns  from  dairy  cattle  on  the  farms  studied  were  classified  as  (i) 
milk  and  milk  products,  (2)  appreciation  on  cattle,  (3)  manure  recovered, 
(4)  miscellaneous  returns. 

Milk  and  milk  products 

Milk  sold. —  Of  the  149  farms,  52  sold  to  the  Empire  State  Dairy  Com- 
pany at  Windsor  and  i  to  this  company  at  Oquaga,  39  sold  to  Cloverdale 
Farms  Company  at  Binghamton,  18  sold  to  F.  W.  Jansen  at  Whitney's 
Point,  1 6  to  Bordens'  at  Tunnel,  7  to  Sheffield  Farms,  Slawson-Decker 
Company,  at  Conklin,  5  to  Bordens'  at  Whitney's  Point,  3  to  the  Broome 
County  Dairy  Company  at  Binghamton,  7  a  part  of  the  year  to  F.  W. 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


295 


£ 


m 


|e£?§ 


•   CO 
•<«= 


O         tC  »0  ON  Tf  COVO 


"HO  CO   10    O     ^-^O 

t^.  CO         CS    0)    CO  (S    H-I 


fO  rh  »OOO  H-I 


^O         CO 
ON       00 


O 


oo  o        r» 

O»OOOOOMOC< 


2*0  •«  85 


ONOO  l^  O«  ^O  O   »-"   CO  (S   COVO  00  CO  cO  t^  HH 
lO^O   i-HOjr^OcO  IOHHI-ICOMI-H 


O 


t^  10  t^  rt-  rl-vO  COHHO\COC<COC<M»-HI-I 


:  :§ 


:.sr 


* 

a  :  :  :1|S11  id  :  ffl 

^^  :  £2     "i    M^s  -.a  -^  °L 


<••— i         ^ 
O        "S 


PQ 


EXCHANGE 


An  Economic  Study  of  Dairying  on  149 
Farms  in  Broome  County,  New  York 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL   OF 

CORNELL  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


7 


EDWARD  GARDNER  MISNER 


*. 

(MI 


Published  as  Bulletin  409 
Cornell  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  April  1922. 


517520 


N7M 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Regional  conditions.  .  .' 274 

Results  of  the  investigation 279 

Part  I.     Concerning  the  entire  enterprise 279 

Costs 279 

Feed 279 

Grain  and  other  concentrates 279 

Succulent  feed 282 

Dry  forage 282 

Pasture 282 

Bedding 286 

Labor 287 

Milk  hauling 287 

Use  of  buildings 290 

Use  of  equipment 292 

Interest 293 

Miscellaneous  costs .• 294 

Returns .  . 294 

Milk  and  milk  products 294 

Milk  sold 294 

Milk  products  sold 298 

Milk  and  milk  products  used 298 

Appreciation  on  cattle 300 

Manure  recovered 300 

Miscellaneous  returns ,-•••• 3°3 

Summary  of  costs  and  returns 304 

Cost  of  producing  milk  and  butterfat 304 

Quantities  of  feed  and  labor  per  unit  of  product 312 

Capital  invested  for  milk  production 312 

Effect  of  changes  in  the  price  of  labor,  of  feed,  and  of  other  factors,  on  the  cost 

of  milk  production 313 

Part  II.     Concerning  cows 314 

Breeds 314 

Numbers 314 

Average  production : 316 

Feeds  used 318 

Labor  required 320 

Costs  and  returns 320 

Size  of  herd 322 

Size  of  farm 323 

Feed  used 323 

Labor  required 325 

Use  of  buildings 325 

Costs  and  returns .  327 

Productive  life  of  cows 328 

Conclusions  on  size  of  herd 328 

Season  of  milk  production 329 

Summer  and  winter  seasons .  .  .  . ' 329 

Summer  and  winter  dairies 335 

Summer  and  winter  seasons  in  winter  dairies 358 

Conclusions  regarding  season  of  production 358 

Feeds  and  feeding 360 

Nutriment  and  energy .' 360 

Use  of  concentrates 368 

Use  of  succulent  feed 375 

Combined  effect  of  large  proportion  of  energy  in  both  grains  and  succulent 

feed 382 

Ration  of  the  highest-producing  and  most  profitable  herd 383 

271 


272  CONTENTS 

Results  of  the  investigation  (concluded] : 
Part  II  (concluded) : 

Production  per  cow ' 3^5 

Intensity  of  feeding .••.••. 389 

Relation  of  production  to  diminishing  returns 390 

Relation  of  production  and  season  of  production  to  intensity  of  feeding  and 

to  costs  and  returns 393 

Relation  of  production  to  value  of  cows .  395 

Combined  effect  of  size  of  herd,  season  of  production,  and  production  per  cow, 

on  costs  and  returns 396 

Butterfat  test  of  milk 397 

Variation  in  test 398 

Relation  of  test  of  milk  to  production 399 

Relation  of  test  of  milk  to  costs  and  returns 399 

Comparison  of  hill  and  valley  farms 400 

Location 400 

Size  of  dairy  business 401 

Season  of  production 402 

Production 402 

Cow-testing-association  herds 404 

Milk  hauling 407 

Part  III.     Concerning  heifers .' 411 

Amounts  of  feed  used  and  labor  required 411 

Feed 411 

Labor 412 

Costs,  returns,  and  profits 413 

Size  of  herd 414 

Heifers  in  three  seasonal  groups 414 

Production  per  cow,  and  costs  and  returns  for  heifers 416 

Probable  cost  at  1920  prices 419 

Results  for  first  and  second  years  from  other  sources 422 

Part  IV.     Concerning  herd  bulls 423 

Bull  calves  to  be  kept .  423 

Herd  bulls  from  one  to  two  years  old 423 

Herd  bulls  more  than  two  years  old 423 

Feed  used 424 

Labor 425 

Cost  of  keeping  herd  bulls 426 

Cost  of  bull  service  on  farms  keeping  herd  bulls 427 

Cost  of  bull  service  on  farms  hiring  service  only 427 

Total  cost  of  bull  service 427 

Comparison  of  grade  and  purebred  bulls " 427 

Age  of  bull 427 

Cost  of  bulls  in  three  seasonal  groups 43 1 

Part  V.     Concerning  veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold 434 

Amount  and  value  of  feed  used,  and  miscellaneous  costs  and  returns 434 

Size  of  herd  and  number  of  calves  vealed 435 

Calves  vealed  in  three  seasonal  groups 436 

Summary 438 

Blank  form  used 440 


AN    ECONOMIC    STUDY    OF    DAIRYING    ON    149    FARMS    IN 
BROOME  COUNTY,  NEW  YORK 

E.    G.    MlSNER 

The  rapid  growth  of  the  milk  trade,  increases  in  the  cost  of  milk  pro- 
duction, and  advances  in  the  price  of  milk  to  consumers,  have  made  the 
economic  problems  concerned  in  the  production,  transportation,  and  dis- 
tribution of  market  milk  of  increasing  public  concern.  This  bulletin  is 


FlG.    48. 


CHEESE  FACTORIES,  AND  BUTTER  AND  CHEESE 
FACTORIES, 


a  report  of  a  cost  study,  concerned  only  with  the  problems  of  production, 
not  with  those  of  transportation  or  distribution.  The  costs  in  terms  of 
dollars  are  out  of  date  because  prices  have  changed,  but  the  quantities  are 
not  affected  so  much  by  price  changes. 

AUTHOR'S  ACKNOWI-EDGMENTS.  The  dairymen  of  Broome  County,  New  York,  furnished  the  produc- 
tion data  for  this  study.  The  investigation  was  under  the  direction  of  Professor  G.  F.  Warren,  of  the 
Department  of  Agricultural  Economics  and  Farm  Management,  New  York  State  College  of  Agriculture. 
Professor  E.  S.  Savage,  of  the  Department  of  Ar.imal  Husbandry,  advised  for  that  part  of  the  study  relating 
to  feeding.  Professor  K.  C.  Livermore  gave  criticisms  and  helpful  suggestions.  E.  R.  Minns  assisted  the 
writer  in  doing  the  field  work.  To  these  and  to  all  others  who  helped  with  the  work,  the  writer  is  indebted. 

273 


274 


BULLETIN  409 


^  July  and  August,  1915,  in  cooperation  with  the  Broome  County 
Farm  Improvement  Association,  data  concerning  the  dairy  business  for 
the  year  ending  May  i,  1915,  were  obtained  from  149  farmers  in  Broome 
County. 

The  exact  figures  for  the  pounds  of  milk  delivered  to  the  milk  stations 
and  the  amount  paid  were  obtained  for  each  farm  from  the  companies 
buying  the  milk.  Some  farmers  kept  no  record  of  milk  sold,  and  thus 


FlG.  49.      MILK   STATIONS,    IQlS 


the  necessity  of  accepting  estimates  as  to  the  sales  of  milk  was  eliminated. 
For  114  farms,  the  average  butterfat  test  of  the  milk  by  months  was  given 
by  the  companies.  Other  information  was  obtained  from  the  farmers. 
Care  was  taken  to  obtain  complete  and  fair  estimates. 

The  form  of  blank  for  summarizing  records  in  this  office  is  shown  on 

pages  440  to  443. 

REGIONAL  CONDITIONS 

Broome  County  is  one  of  the  southern  border  counties  of  New  York 
State.  It  is  bounded  on  the  east  by  Delaware  County,  on  the  west  by 
Tioga  County,  on  the  north  by  Chenango  and  Cortland  Counties,  and  on 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


275 


the  south  by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  It  contains  705  square  miles, 
85  per  cent  of  which  is  in  farms.  In  1920,  according  to  preliminary  returns 
for  the  fourteenth  United  States  census,  the  population  was  113,610. 
Binghamton,  near  the  center  of  the  county,  the  county  seat  and  the 
only  city  of  importance,  had  a  population  of  66,800.  Three  railroad  lines 
-  the  Delaware,  Lackawanna  and  Western,  the  Erie,  and  the  Delaware 
and  Hudson  —  serve  the  county.  Binghamton  furnishes  a  fair  market 


/6 


FlG.  50.       CREAMERIES    AND    SKIMMING    STATIONS,    1 91 8 


for  a   considerable  amount  of  farm  produce.     Most   of  the  surplus  is 
shipped  to  New  York  City,  207  miles  by  rail. 

The  topography  of  Broome  County  is  that  of  a  feebly  glaciated  plateau 
region,  thru  which  streams  have  cut  deep  valleys.  Besides  many  small 
streams,  three  rivers  of  considerable  size  intersect  the  county,  the  Otselic 
joining  the  Tioughnioga  at  Whitney  Point  in  the  northern  part,  the  Tiough- 
nioga  joining  the  Chenango  at  Chenango  Forks,  and  the  Chenango  joining 
the  Susquehanna  at  Binghamton.  These  river  valleys  are  from  one-half 
mile  to  almost  two  miles  wide,  and  lie  at  an  elevation  of  about  800 
to  900  feet. 


276 


BULLETIN  409 


The  valley  soils  are  mapped  as  of  the  Chenango  and  Genesee  series.1 
They  are  by  far  the  more  productive  soils  of  the  county,  altho  in  some 
places  adjacent,  to  the  rivers  they  are  so  low  that  crops  are  sometimes 
damaged  or  destroyed  by  floods  out  of  season. 

The  land  back  from"  the  valleys  is  rolling  to  steep.  Much  of  the  area  is 
in  woods,  and  a  large  proportion  is  suitable  only  for  grazing.  The  highest 
elevations  are  in  the  southern  part  of  the  county,  where  the  average  level 
of  the  hilltops  is  about  1500  feet,  altho  the  highest  point  is  over  2000  feet. 

fr  *V 


FlG.   51.       CONDENSARIES,    IQI8 

St.  Lawrence  County  has  also  19  combination  milk  stations  and 
condensaries 


Aside  from  small  areas  of  alluvial  soils  in  the  stream  valleys,  the  upland 
soils  are  generally  of  one  type,  Volusia  silt  loam.  Thi ;  is  the  most  exten- 
sive and  least  productive  type  in  the  county.  Its  distinguishing  character- 
istics are  low  humus  content  and  low  lime  content.  ™he  compact  subsoil 
or  rock,  generally  lying  close  to  the  surface,  makes  drainage  conditions 
unfavorable  to  the  best  crop  production. 

Weather  records  give  the  mean  annual  temperature  at  Binghamton, 
871  feet  above  sea  level,  for  the  years  1890  to  1916  inclusive,  as  46.8°  F., 

1  Field  operations  of  the  Bureau  of  Soils.     United  States  Agr.  Dept.     Report  n  :  71-96.     1905. 
Soils  of  the  United  States.     United  States  Soils  Bureau.     6111.96:744.     1913. v 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING  277 

and  the  average  rainfall  as  33.18  inches.  About  half  of  the  rain,  15.61 
inches,  falls  from  April  to  August  inclusive.  Much  of  the  summer  rain- 
fall comes  in  heavy  showers  which  quickly  run  off,  and  drouths  are  some- 
what frequent,  so  that  pastures  often  need  to  be  supplemented  during 
August  and  September. 

The  average  length  of  the  growing  season  at  Binghamton  for  the  years 
mentioned  was  150  days.2  The  average  date  of  the  last  killing  frost  in 
the  spring  was  May  6,  and  of  the  first  killing  frost  in  the  fall  October  3. 
Altho  there  are  no  weather  records  for  the  uplands  of  this  county,  the  grow- 
ing season  there  averages  from  two  to  three  weeks  shorter.  This  makes 
the  pasture  season  shorter,  and  the  frost  injury  to  crops,  particularly  to 
corn,  more  extensive,  on  the  hills.  . 

There  are  three  types  of  farming  common  in  Broome  County  —  general 
farming,  dairy  farming,  and  trucking  for  the  local  markets. 

Most  of  the  trucking  is  confined  to  the  valleys  near  the  principal  towns, 
while  general  and  dairy  farming  is  found  both  in  the  valleys  and  on  the 
hills.  The  farms  on  the  Volusia  soil  are  devoted  primarily  to  the  produc- 
tion of  forage  crops  and  to  dairying.  On  a  few,  potatoes  are  grown  as 
a  cash  crop,  but  in  general  the  land  is  too  poor  and  the  season  too  short 
to  grow  other  intensive  crops.  The  distance  to  market  is  much  greater 
from  the  farms  on  the  uplands,  and  this  factor  also  influences  the  type. 
Everything  considered,  dairying  is  the  best  type  of  farming  for  the  upland 
conditions. 

According  to  the  thirteenth  census  the  average  farm  in  the  county  in 
1910  contained  102  acres.  Of  this,  35  acres  were  in  crops  exclusive  of 
fruit,  22  in  woods,  and  45  in  pasture  and  other  land.  Of  the  crop  land, 
27  acres  were  in  hay  and  forage.  The  other  principal  crops  are  corn, 
oats,  buckwheat,  and  potatoes.  These  crops  are  typical  of  the  farms 
studied. 

Altho  Broome  County  may  be  considered  a  leading  dairy  county  of  the 
State,  many  dairymen,  especially  those  of  the  uplands,  follow  an  extensive 
system.  An  abundance  of  pasture,  a  short  growing  season,  and  a  soil 
that  is  not  naturally  fertile,  encourage  the  summer  system.  The  industry 
never  has  been  so  intensively  developed  here  as  it  has  in  the  neighboring 
counties  of  Delaware  and  Chenango,  or  in  many  other  counties  of  the  State. 
This  may  be  due  mostly  to  less  productive  soil. 

During  the  past  thirty  years  the  system  of  dairying  has  become 
increasingly  more  intensive.  In  1880  there  were  29,398  dairy  cows  two 
years  old  or  older  on  farms  in  the  county,  and  3,659,982  pounds  of  butter 
made  on  farms.3  In  1917  there  were  27,029  dairy  cows  on  3027  farms 
in  the  county,  an  average  of  8.9  per  farm  reporting  dairy  cows.4  The 

2  Climatological  data,  New  York  section,  August,  1916,  page  94. 

3  United  States  census  report,  1880. 

4  Census  of  the  agricultural  resources  of  New  York,  1917. 


278 


BULLETIN  409 


United  States  census  of  1910  reported  410,291  pounds  of  butter  made 
on  farms  in  the  county  during  1909.  In  1900  there  were  twenty  milk 
stations  in  the  county,  and  in  1916  there  were  forty.5 

The  making  of  butter  and  cheese  has  practically  ceased.  This  has 
resulted  in  more  winter  milk.  The  next  step  in  the  development  of  a 
more  intensive  system  of  dairying  in  the  region  will  be  the  production  of 


L-S3F" 
_.;•_ 


FlG.  52.      MAP   OF   BROOME    COUNTY   SHOWING  LOCATION   OF  FARMS   STUDIED 

Of  the  149  farmers,  104  owned  all  of  the  land  they  farmed,  6  owned  part  and  share-rented  additional 
land,  12  owned  part  and  cash-rented  additional  land,  and  20  share-rented  and  7  cash-rented  all  of  the 
land,  they  farmed.  The  average  number  of  acres  per  farm  was  157,  and  the  average  distance  to  market 
was  3-4  miles.  The  average  age  of  the  farmers  was  47  years 

a  still  larger  proportion  of  the  milk  in  winter,  as  the  demands  of  Binghamton 
and  New  York  City  for  market  milk  continue  to  grow. 

The  farms  included  in  this  survey  were  in  various  parts  of  the  county, 
but  most  of  them  were  in  the  vicinity  of  Windsor,  Whitney  Point,  and 
Binghamton.  Fifty  were  in  the  Susquehanna,  Chenango,  and  Otselic 
Valleys,  and  ninety-nine  were  on  the  hills  or  upland.  Herds  of  less  than 
six  cows  were  not  included,  but  other  than  this  there  was  no  selection. 


5  Bulletin  5,   New  York  State  Department  of  Agriculture,  pages  4-5,  1900,  and  Bulletin 
State  Department  of  Agriculture,  pages  3,  4,  and  5,  1916. 


5,  New  York 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING  279 

RESULTS  OF  THE  INVESTIGATION 

For  convenience  the  results  of  this  study  are  arranged  in  five  parts. 
Part  I  considers  the  entire  dairy  enterprise  as  the  unit  of  study;  Part  II 
deals  with  cows  only,  Part  III  with  heifers,  Part  IV  with  herd  bulls,  and 
Part  V  with  veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold. 

PART    I.       CONCERNING    THE    ENTIRE    ENTERPRISE 

When  the  entire  dairy  enterprise  is  considered  the  unit,  all  the  costs  of 
maintaining  cows,  costs  of  growing  and  maintaining  heifers,  calves,  veals, 
bulls  to  be  sold,  and  herd  bulls,  costs  of  marketing  dairy  products,  and  any 
other  costs  for  dairy  cattle,  are  charged.  All  returns  from  the  enterprise  are 
credited  and  the  difference  is  considered  the  gain  or  loss  on  the  enterprise. 

The  dairy  is  only  one  of  the  various  parts  of  a  farm  business,  and  there- 
fore the  results  do  not  show  the  gain  or  loss  on  the  whole  farm.  An  investi- 
gation that  included  the  labor  income  as  well  as  costs  and  returns  for  the 
dairy  would  be  useful. 

Costs 

The  various  costs  chargeable  to  dairy  cattle  may  be  classified  as  follows : 
feed,  bedding,  labor,  milk  hauling,  use  of  buildings,  use  of  equipment, 
interest,  and  miscellaneous  charges. 

Feed 

No  account  was  taken  of  feed  given  to  stock  other  than  dairy  cattle. 
The  total  quantities  and  costs  of  the  various  feedstuffs  used  by  all  dairy 
cattle,  by  cows  during  the  pasture  period,  by  heifers,  by  herd  bulls,  and 
by  bulls  raised  to  be  sold,  were  obtained  separately  in  the  field.  The  feed 
used  by  cows  during  the  winter  period  was  considered  to  be  the  difference 
between  the  total  herd  quantities  and  the  other  quantities. 

All  grain,  succulent  feed,  and  forage  raised  on  the  farm  and  used  by  cattle, 
was  charged  at  what  it  would  sell  for  at  the  farm,  that  is,  its  market  value 
less  the  cost  of  marketing.  All  feedstuffs  purchased  were  charged  at  the 
prices  paid.  The  cost  of-  hauling  to  the  farm  was  included  with  labor, 
equipment,  milk  hauling,  and  other  costs.  Much  of  the  purchased  grain 
is  hauled  home  by  the  farmer  when  returning  from  delivering  the  milk. 
This  was  included  with  the  charge  for  milk  hauling.  Extra  trips  for  feed, 
as  well  as  the  time  spent  hauling  home-grown  grains  to  and  from  the  mills 
and  the  time  spent  mixing  feed,  was  charged  under  labor. 

Grain  and  other  concentrates. —  With  grain  and  other  concentrates 
were  included  all  concentrated  feedstuffs,  namely,  all  grains  and  their 
by-products  whether  home-grown  or  purchased,4  calf  meal,  condimental 
feeds,  and  salt  (table  i).  The  charge  for  grain  represented  36  per  cent 
of  the  total  feed  cost  and  20  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  the  enterprise. 

On  the  149  farms  there  were  six  different  kinds  of  grain  raised  and  fed 
cattle,  and  at  least  forty-three  different  kinds  of  grain  purchased  and  fed. 


280 


BULLETIN  409 


11 


I 


0^0      -^ 


J  1/5      •  C<J  t 


O    O  O  O  O 


CO  ^  O  O 


•• 


-OO^OO      -OOCO 


(M-I^H  -10 


(M^tlM  •Ol^t^1Mr~ 

oi-^tt^  -i-iooocoevi 

r-  ^  o  -0004000 

CO  •  i-H 


ess  M" 


ooi-i    -coc^          t^  <M  TH      ^^rt 
oo    -ebo          o  I-H  o      <M  co  o 


CO^i—  (T-tC^'^t^'—  »OiCO»-HCD 
T*<  ^H  lOt^CO         CO  ^H         O 

«oeo"  co 


ti^cvcva*      »c"oo      «o"«o 

(NCO-H         N  00-H 


O3         OOJ"5 

-H      ooo 


.      lilirfi 

|iil|ailll    il-^ifsi 


II 
II 

01  a- 


.13 


h 

1! 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


281 


g 


M 


CM          <M 


(M  O  i-H  (M  i-H  rH       •  •  ^H        •  ,-!  rt 


10      •      •  (N 


O>  ^h      -IMOOO      •         t-H  C 
i-c  >O      ••^t^t>.      •  ( 


O»O      •        O^t<      •      -O 
O  <M      •         Ot^      •      -CO 


-,-1       -O          (N  <N        •^H.-KM        •          <-H 


CO       -^H 

«o      . 


•o  1 


CO         CO         COOt-CO      •  <M      •         CO 


2  :S  : 


I 


oo  cs  o  o  ooo  oco      o«-i'-i»-i    -oo      o    -o 


t—  »-H  i^  i—  I 


CO      •         »H  t- 


2  co  oo  5!  S3  So  co 


i 


111 

SS.5S 


S2SS88SS8S8S- 


(M  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


c^cTi-HO  ooo»o  <?{<N  OIM'CO      t*?  ao  a*  <n  o  ao  cv      coco      , 

OO  i— (  T-H  i-H  CO         O         CNCO^^CN  T-H  i— (        ^ 


00  t--  (M  TH  TH  ^H  «S1  CM  ^H  T-l  T-l 


Sa'S 


c^ 


- 

c  S"^  »  §^  S^.S         -2 

n  Klil^lld  ^ 


"I 


282  BULLETIN  409 

The  usual  practice  is  to  buy  all  -the  grain.  Only  53  farms  raised  any 
grain  to  feed  cattle.  Practically  all  of  this  was  oats  and  buckwheat. 
Purchased  grain  represented  96  per  cent  of  the  quantity  used,  and  at  the 
average  price  of  $29.86  a  ton  it  represented  also  96  per  cent  of  the  charge 
for  grain  used  by  dairy  cattle.  The  average  value  of  home-grown  grain 
used  was  $31.48  a  ton. 

Succulent  feed. —  Silage,  green  corn,-  potatoes,  cabbage,  cabbage  fodder, 
mangels,  beets,  turnips,  carrots,  apples,  soiling  crops,  skimmilk  purchased, 
and  other  feeds  with  a  very  high  percentage  of  water,  were  classed  as 
succulent  feed.  Brewers'  grains  wet  were  converted  to  their  dry  equivalent 
by  considering  3.8  pounds  of  wet  grains  equal  to  i  pound  of  dried  grains, 
and  were  charged  under  grain  rather  than  under  succulent  feed.  Quanti- 
ties, costs,  and  the  number  of  farms  using  each  kind  of  succulent  feed, 
are  given  in  table  2. 

Corn  silage  was  charged  at  $5  a  ton.  Under  some  conditions,  the  market 
value  of  silage  should  be  used  when  charging  it  to  another  enterprise; 
but  generally,  in  New  York  State,  corn  for  the  silo  is  not  raised  to  be  sold 
either  as  grain  or  as  silage,  and  hence  it  should  be  charged  at  cost.  There 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  cost  of  producing  silage  on  the  farms  studied 
was  less  than  this  figure. 

Of  the  149  farms,  69,  or  46  per  cent,  fed  silage.  On  these  farms,  4284 
tons  of  corn  silage  and  20  tons  of  millet  silage  were  fed  dairy  cattle.  An 
agricultural  census  of  the  State  taken  in  1917  showed  that  3027  farms  in 
Broome  County  kept  dairy  cows  and  1033  grew  corn  for  the  silo  in  1916; 
thus,  about  one-third  of  the  farms  with  dairy  cows  grew  silage. 

Other  succulent  feeds  were  charged  at  their  estimated  farm  values. 
Of  all  the  herds,  26,  or  17  per  cent,  fed  no  succulent  feed.  Excepting  21.8 
tons  of  skimmilk  and  1.35  tons  of  potatoes  purchased,  all  succulent  feed 
was  raised  on  the  farms  where  fed. 

Dry  forage. —  All  hay,  corn  stover,  straw,  and  other  cured  roughage 
was  classed  as  dry  forage.  One  per  cent  was  purchased.  Of  this,  n 
farms  bought  42.75  tons  of  hay,  and  two  other  farms  bought  12  tons  of 
cornstalks.  The  amount  fed  to  dairy  cattle  per  farm  was  35.4  tons, 
of  which  mixed  hay  constituted  63  per  cent.  The  average  value  of  dry 
forage  per  ton  was  $9.62.  Details  as  to  quantities,  costs,  and  number  of 
farms  using  each  kind  of  dry  forage,  are  given  in  table  3 . 

Pasture. —  Most  farms  had  sufficient  pasture  for  their  cattle.  Of  the 
149  farmers,  45  paid  $793  to  pasture  some  of  their  cattle  a  part  or  all  of 
the  season,  and  20  received  $305  for  stock  taken  in. 

Pasture  was  charged  at  cost.  In  determining  this  cost,  interest  at  5 
per  cent  and  taxes  at  0.5  per  cent  were  charged  on  the  value  of  the  land 
pastured.  Charges  for  labor  and  materials  used  in  making  and  repairing 
pasture  fences,  in  manuring  when  manure  was  hauled  and  applied,  in 
fertilizing,  reseeding,  mowing  brush  or  weeds,  or  in  any  other  treatment 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


283 


Jj 


.«5<-5«5 


111!  i 


>O 

•*** 


•  CO  <M  r-l 


(^  CS  OO  t^  OC 

00  CO  O  C^l  »0  O  •>*<  OO  (M         O  OJ  tO 
rf*         i-H         Tt<  1C  i— I  i— ' 

>          .  __^ 

'.P 

c?g^ooo,o      K      r^^oopo         :S§      S? 

O'—*t^"tOOtOl>.<rHOt^-OtOt^-t^-^OiCs1»^ 

C^l  ^H         Ot--<tl  >O  CO  CO  !M  (M  r-H  -  t^ 

OOOOO<MO2Tf<iMO'OOOCOiOOOO200t^OOO 
O  ^H  C^  OS  OT»<  OO  CJ         O  O5  CO  i-l  00  O  (M  i-l 
•ifri  ^H          1O  1O  i-l  i-H  T-H  ^ 

s>  s"   ~~ 

kO  CO  < 

K         SK^OOOlO         S  U9  «         OOC§ 

^0=0        sss^S£^t^°£co;88£2;0iC<'' 
£  I 

g^^    g5  Oi~HO<MOOCOCO.-IC<lt^COC^OOtO!M^H^i 

gJJi 

1 

o 

~^ 

gfti! 

| 


284 


BULLETIN  409 


1 

0) 

;  55   ••••'•••••       •   • 

^ 

£ 

3 

X 

111! 

•  05        

•  o    • 

C5 

P 

3 

1*5-1.1 

z^^S 

\^  '.  \  \   \  \   \   '.  \   \       '.   '. 

g 

O 

s, 

J 

|E»a-«»-»    j'j 

S 

H 
en 

5 

Herd  bul 

ilii 

1C                                   IO         >O  >O             •      • 
CO  •^H^HCMO^H'-icNi^HOCO 

O 

PQ 

\o 
i~>. 

Hi! 

g^NW^HTjte^W^T-ieO             ;       ; 

% 

< 

uf 
J 

1 

co  co  t^  10  ^  S  o  ^§  co  <n  co         •     • 

<M  O5  .-1  i-H                   M  rt                  <N                .        . 

CO 

8 

5 

« 

Q 

3 

i 

n 

Jill 

M 

0 

i 

w 
W 
CN 

III! 

t-.  M  CO  U5  •*  •*  U>  "5  00  -H  00             •      • 

vT 
« 
H 

0> 

J 

S« 

o" 

i 

3 
K 

1 

IgJ 

I'lfe 

^§3SSc^2c^gSaS§      c§§ 

O  O  -H  CM  •*  oi  O5  O5  -^  CO  »O        O(N 

1 

o 

o 

5 

en" 
O 

H 

»O                      1C               IO  »O               »O 

CO  O3  OS  -H  •*  O  CM  00  lr^  CO  CM         t^O 

8 

CO 

00 
10 

B 

i- 

1 

X 

> 

i*"         , 

1 

n 

s 

||| 

2oS^!:^22  11 

S 

i 

^   °*ft 

JH^,^,-,^ 

ID 

»,        T3 

U5 

«5 

w 
o 
< 

H 

o 

H 

CM  «5  O  CO  T»H  Tf  CO  O  CO         O         •«»•  TM 

co" 

1 

fe 
>< 
M 

n 

1*57.1 

IJil 

ga-saaaa-B  a- 

TABLE  3.  I 

Kind  of  feed 

1  !  i|  :  11  i«l  1      ;  : 

«^l>.t  :  i«  i^S      :  = 

w                        2   £ 

Total  dry  forage  

AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


285 


of  the  pasture,  and  money  paid  for  the  use  of  pasture,  were  included.  The 
amount  received  for  stock  taken  in  to  pasture  was  deducted  to  get  the 
cost  of  pasturing  the  farmer's  own  stock.  This  cost  on  each  record  was  ap- 
portioned to  cows,  heifers,  herd  bulls,  horses,  and  sheep,  on  the  animal -unit 
basis  and  according  to  the  number  of  days  pastured.  Most  of  the  pasture 
hired  was  for  heifers  and  the  amount  paid  was  charged  directly  to  them. 

The  average  date  of  turning  out  in  the  spring  was  May  14,  and  that  of 
beginning  full  barn  feeding  in  the  fall  was  October  19.  This  allowed  an 
average  of  159  days  on  pasture.  The  dates  of  turning  out  varied  from 
May  i  to  June  i.  The  dates  of  beginning  to  feed  in  the  fall  varied  from 
September  15  to  November  15.  Usually  the  meadows  were  pastured 
after  the  hay  was  removed.  They  furnished  considerable  feed,  especially 
on  the  river  flats.  For  this  no  charge  was  made,  altho  such  a  charge 
should  have  been  included.  In  late  summer  and  early  fall,  pasture  was 
frequently  supplemented  by  grain  or  fodder  or  both.  The  dry  matter  in 
the  feed  used  supplementary  to  pasture  for  cows  was  equivalent  to  the  dry 
matter  in  ten  days  of  winter  feed.  On  this  basis  pasture  furnished  149 
days  of  full  feed  for  cows. 

An  average  of  53.2  acres  to  each  farm  was  pastured.  Since  the  average 
size  of  farm  was  156.7  acres,  34  per  cent  of  the  land  was  in  pasture.  The 
average  value  was  $20.25  an  acre-  On  the  average  3.1  acres  were  pastured 
per  animal  unit. 

The  cost  of  pasture  was  $4.83  per  cattle  unit  for  the  season,  or  3.04 
cents  a  day.  Of  this,  interest  and  taxes  comprised  72  per  cent,  and  fencing 
costs  20  per  cent.  The  balance  was  cash  paid  for  hired  pasture  and  other 
miscellaneous  items.  The  charge  for  stock  taken  in  to  pasture  was  at 
the  rate  of  $6.30  an  animal  unit  for  the  season,  or  about  4  cents  a  day. 

A  summary  of  pasture  costs  is  given  in  table  4.  Stock  pastured,  and 
the  distribution  of  the  cost  of  pasture,  are  given  in  table  5. 

TABLE  4.    COST  OF  PASTURE,  2018  Cows,  607  HEIFERS,  106  HERD  BULLS,  199  SHEEP, 

AND  124  HORSES  AND  COLTS 

7,927.5  acres  of  pasture  land  at  $20.25  =  $160,509 


Item 

Farms 
having  t 
expense 

Cost 

Interest  and  taxes  at  5  5  per  cent 

149 

$8,828 

Making  and  repairing  fences.                              

147 

2,  195 

Mowing  and  reseeding  

5 

69 

Fertilizing  and  manuring  

2 

165 

Amount  paid  for  pasture  rented  

4S 

793 

Total   . 

$12,250 

Received  for  pasture        .    .                                        

2O 

1O5 

Difference  (  —  cost  of  pasture) 

$11  ,04.5 

286  BULLETIN  409 

TABLE  5.     STOCK  PASTURED,  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  PASTURE  COST 


Kind  of  stock 

Number 
of  farms 
pasturing 

Number 
of 
animals 
pastured 

Average 
number 
of  days 
pastured  to 
each  farm 
pasturing 

Equivalent 
in  animal 
units  for 
entire 
season 

Amount 
charged 

Stock  owned  : 
Cows  
Heifers 

149 

122 

2,018 
607 

159 
14.6 

2,018.5 
•205   7 

$9,338 

I    QO7 

Herd  bulls 

IOO 

1  06 

i  -21 

76    I 

^4.6 

Total  cattle  

2  ,7-11 

2    AGO    ^ 

$11    SQI 

Sheep  

8 

IQQ 

I  -I  A 

^1     ^ 

1  06 

Horses  and  colts  

52 

I24 

99 

64.8 

248 

Total  owned 

^   OS4 

' 

2    4Q6   4 

$11    04.  S 

Stock  taken  in: 
Mature                 

II 

IQ 

l\\ 

ISO 

Young                 

12 

68 

152 

\2    S 

Total  

7,  141 

2  ,  S44-  8 

Acres  of  pasture  per  animal  unit,  3.1. 

Cost  for  each  cattle  unit  of  farmer's  own  stock,  $4.83. 


Bedding 

Waste  hay  and  stover  from  the  mangers  furnished  a  considerable  quantity 
of  bedding.  No  charge  was  made  for  this,  since  it  was  charged  to  the 
cattle  as  forage.  Very  little  bedding  was  purchased.  The  bedding  cost 
was  apportioned  to  cows,  heifers,  and  herd  bulls  on  each  farm.  The  data 
are  given  in  table  6 : 

TABLE  6.    BEDDING  USED  BY  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  AND  172  HERD  BULLS 


All  herds 

Cows 

Heifers 

Herd  bulls 

Kind  of  bedding 

Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 

Amount 
(tons) 

Value 

Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 

Value 

Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 

Value 

Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 

Value 

using 

using 

using 

using 

Home-grown: 

Oat  straw  

90 

269.3 

$1,483 

92 

$1,171 

65 

$225 

5i 

$87 

Buckwheat  straw  . 

21 

32   7 

105 

22 

101 

i 

4 

0 

Wheat  straw  

I 

O.5 

2 

I 

2 

o 

o 

Rye  straw  :           i 

3-0 

24 

I 

18 

i 

2 

i 

4 

Chaff  :           6 

? 

27 

6 

17 

2 

6 

3 

4 

Swamp  and  marsh  hay  .  .             6 

9-5 

50 

5 

40 

3 

8 

2 

2 

O 

? 

22 

8 

22 

0 

6 

Total  home-grown.  .  .  . 

$1,713 

$i,37i 

$245 

$97 

Purchased  : 

Sawdust  .  . 

52 

? 

$315 

51 

$275 

12 

$28 

8 

$12 

Shavings  

5 

? 

26 

5 

18 

I 

5 

I 

3 

Buckwheat  straw  

I 

? 

14 

i 

2 

I 

10 

i 

2 

Oat  straw 

3 

? 

12 

2 

7 

2 

4 

i 

I 

Total  purchased  

$367 

$302 

$47 

$18 

Total  bedding  

$2,080 



$1,673 



$292 

$H5 

AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING  287 

Labor 

Some  farmers  hauled  their  own  milk,  while  many  hired  it  hauled.  Some 
spent  considerable  time  in  making  and  repairing  pasture  fences  or  in 
constructing  and  repairing  buildings,  while  others  spent  little.  For  these 
reasons  it  was  thought  best  to  include  such  time  under  charges  for  milk 
hauling,  pasture,  and  use  of  buildings,  rather  than  under  labor. 

Excepting  this,  and  also  time  spent  in  raising  and  harvesting  crops 
and  time  spent  hauling  manure  from  the  barnyard,  all  human  and  horse 
labor  for  the  dairy  enterprise  was  charged  under  the  heading  Labor. 
This  includes  all  labor  in  milking,  taking  care  of  milk  and  dairy  equipment, 
feeding,  cleaning  cattle  and  stables,  hauling  and  mixing  feed,  hauling 
bedding,  buying  and  selling  cattle,  and?  all  other  time  spent  for  cattle. 
Not  only  was  this  labor  divided  as  to  whether  it  was  spent  for  cows,  for 
heifers,  or  for  herd  bulls,  but  it  was  also  divided  according  to  whether  it 
was  spent  during  the  pasture  period  or  during  the  winter  period.  The 
average  wage  of  male  farm  labor  without  board  in  New  York  in  1915 
was  $35.80  a  month.6  This  is  about  fifteen  cents  an  hour  for  a  nine-hour 
day,  but  probably  is  too  low  because  use  of  house,  wood,  and  other  things 
furnished  are  not  included  in  all  cases.  Farm  operators,  however,  could 
ordinarily  hire  out  to  operate  farms  at  more  than  hired  men's  wages, 
and  their  time,  therefore,  should  be  counted  at  a  higher  rate.  The  time  of 
women  and  children  usually  is  not  so  valuable  as  the  time  of  men. 

The  cost  of  labor  per  hour  depends  largely  on  the  size  of  the  business, 
on  the  layout  of  the  farm,  on  the  type  and  intensity  of  farming,  and  on 
wages.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  rates  are  usually  higher  on  the  one- 
man  farms  than  on  the  two-man  farms.  But  since  no  records  of  the  cost 
of  labor  on  these  farms  were  available,  it  was  necessary  to  charge  labor 
to  dairy  cattle  at  the  same  rate  on  each  farm,  irrespective  of  the  variations 
mentioned. 

Man  labor  was  charged  at  15  cents  an  hour.  Since  no  records  of  any 
kind  were  available  to  show  what  woman  and  child  labor  cost,  it  was 
charged  at  10  cents  an  hour.  Horse  labor  was  charged  at  15  cents 
an  hour. 

The  data  for  labor  costs  are  given  in  table  7  (page  288). 

Milk  hauling 

In  order  to  make  comparisons  between  farms  that  hired  milk  hauled 
and  those  where  milk  was  hauled  by  the  farmer,  the  cost  of  hauling  milk 
was  kept  separate  from  other  costs. 

When  the  farmer  drew  his  own  milk  only,  or  when  he  cooperated  with 
neighbors  in  hauling,  the  cost  was  found  by  multiplying  the  hours  of 
human  and  horse  time  required  by  the  same  rates  per  hour  as  were  used 
for  other  labor. 


*  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.     Monthly  crop  report,  March,  1917,  page  25. 


2S8 


BULLETIN  409 


crT 

I 

Q 


II 

io              •* 

§ 

4) 

a 

0  0  O        10  0  0  10  0 

\OO\H<        iOOOroi/5 

1-1  rt  M         ro  -^-OO  O  io 
IOO  M        O  -*t  ^tO  rj- 

§ 

00 

i 

10 

cc 

3 

C    10         10  10 
WOO          1010 

C  00        CMo 
\000        0\ 

10  10 

vO   CN 

row  M       o  M 

I 

* 

*             " 

1" 

1 

l| 

S                  5 

c 

0 

Tt-OM            t-0000 

0 

0 

Tj-0           t-t- 

l-i   IO 

""£ 

t^  Tf  M        if,  T)-00  O  O 

ro 

n 

t^c?       O^ 

2  Jo 

»§ 

^S)^  M        ro  M              ^ 

M                           M 

10 

s 

= 

CN   W 

M    CN 

00     M 

Number 
of 
farms 
using 

O\  t--O       00  1-1  00  ro  <N 

M 

•<t  ^t         <N 

•S 

1! 

*        f  '       "* 

§ 

0 

1 

h 

co  .j 

II 

00  1-1  Os        lOOO  Oi  M  ro 

ex: 
n 

o" 

§ 

ro  ^       »O  ro 
0    CN         00 

CN 

M     IO 
IO  M 

8 

c 

Number 
of 
farms 
using 

OO  O       00  1-1  00  <N  O 
<3-  CN   N          T)-  N          O   CN 

2 

(N  00          O   IO 

Ov 

Ii 

O>,  t^  IO         CN   IO  CN 
IO                      CN 

§ 

a 

§S 

O  O    ^t        O   IO  IO  1000 

1 

^2 

^oo      io   • 

C*  M            Tt      - 
O                   M        • 

CN   CM 

•§ 

II 

OOO  IO       \O^  w 

Cv 

*  "i 

M 

I 

JH! 

t^^O  IO         IO  O   IO  M   O\ 

't  ro  CN       ro  CN  HI 

M 

VO  1-1          Tf     • 

r-           ro    • 

i  :|  i  M  i 

:  :     :  : 

:  :  .$  :  :  :  : 

13 

i  ii  M  I 

cows.  .  . 

1 

1 

'.  o.  •      •  '^S 

o          c    :  o    :  c  ".£  & 
"S  bi      *    '^    ''9    '^c3 

pl^lilllll 
Jw 

Total  human  labor  for 

Horse  labor  for  cows  .  . 

Heifers: 
Human  labor  
Horse  labor  .  .  . 
Herd  bulls: 
Human  labor  
Horse  labor  

Total  human  labor  
Total  horse  labor  

AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


289 


.CO 


iO     •      •  O 

M         •         •     5 

»o      o    • 

HH                t^N, 

10 

oo 

a 

d      •      •   ON 
00      •      • 

£    5.  : 

2 

a1 

>> 

3  :  : 

- 

H3  c 

. 

hH 

C^ 

3   O 

^^: 

TO  •_£ 

_Tl 

JO  ^ 

g  :  :^ 

ON        Tf     • 

O   o 

V 

ffi  & 

iO     • 

10              W          • 

|.s 

H 

Si    W 

HI 

(S         •         •     HH 

OJ          (S 

M 

3  ,£  2 

£   0 

O   O   O  O 
•^-  O   N  00 

rh      oo 

o 

CN 

1 

13 

CN    rj-ON  HH 
CN   iO  O   ON 

SO    M   M 

0^        0*    • 

0 

8 

^ 

*  "  ; 

(N 

11 

e-g 

3  « 

vO   O   <N»  00 
00  »O  O   ON 

$     2  : 

fO          QN 

O    r^ 

1.1 

ffi& 

2>~ 

•«f       vo      • 
CO        rj-    • 

H 

JJ| 

00   iO  fN  00 

VO 

ON        ON     • 
VO         vO      • 

* 

1?    * 

oo       10  1^ 

0 

en 

ON        ^  »O 

(N               Tj-   CS 

8 

1 
aj 

lOO   O   O 
10  O    <N  00 

10      o  •* 

iO        to  l^>. 

R 

3 

^"^S'S 

OO         OO   t^» 
VO         10  10 

0? 

o 

IO    HH      HH      HH 

OO         Is**  O 

vO 

13 

H 

^ 

10      oo  10 

<£ 

II 

1^*  O   ^  GO 

^^^  8 

co       ON    • 
CO        CO    • 

O       oo     • 
rh       10    • 

fa  | 

00  IOM   ON 

r^. 

ON 

00 

•         •  oo 

rf 

ll" 

i 

1              ' 
C 

^3 

aj              tuO 

s      s 

^ 

c   :  :  :   : 

*          '5* 

J 

-   :   :   :  § 

13     X3  A 

1 

§J  ^  I 

O        1~H    O 

ffi 

li 

2QO 


BULLETIN  409 


All  charges  for  the  use  of  the  milk  wagon,  cans,  and  other  equipment 
used  in  hauling  milk,  were  included  under  dairy  equipment,  rather  than 
under  milk  hauling.  The  charge,  therefore,  includes  no  expense  for  use 
of  equipment.  When  the  farmer  hired  his  milk  hauled,  the  money  paid 
was  considered  the  cost  of  hauling.  Whenever  a  combination  of  methods 
was  used,  the  cost  was  found  by  adding  the  cash  cost  to  the  farmer's  labor 
charge  for  hauling. 

At  the  rates  used  in  this  study,  human  labor  made  up  29.8  per  cent, 
horse  labor  44.5  per  cent,  and  cash  paid  25.7  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  hauling 
the  milk.  Milk-hauling  charges  made  up  8.2  per  cent  of  the  total  charges 
to  the  enterprise.  Of  the  total  time  spent,  only  14.8  per  cent  was  in 
cooperation  with  neighbors. 

The  figures  for  milk-hauling  costs  are  given  in  table  8. 

Use  of  buildings 

Values  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  year,  of  the  silos,  milk 
houses,  ice  houses,  and  those  parts  of  the  barns  and  other  buildings  used 
by  dairy  cattle,  or  in  storing  all  feed  except  dry  forage  used  by  them,  are 
given  in  table  9 : 

TABLE  9.     VALUE  OF  BUILDINGS,  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  172  HERD  BULLS,  AND 

76  BULLS  TO  BE  SOLD 


- 

May 

1,  1914 

May  I 

,  1915 

Buildings 

Number 
of  farms 
reporting 

Value 

Number 
of  farms 
reporting 

Value 

Dairy  and  cattle  barns*  
Silos  

149 
54. 

$127,612 
8,  cm 

149 
60 

$128,577 
9,777 

Milk  houses    

122 

4,708 

124 

4,821 

Ice  houses  

94 

7,494 

95 

3,507 

Total 

$144   746 

$146,682 

Average  value,  $145,714. 
Increase  in  value,  $1,936. 


*  Includes  9  silos  built  in  barns. 

The  average  of  these  values  was  $145,714,  or  about  $978  per  farm. 
During  the  year  six  new  silos  were  erected,  so  that  at  the  end  of  the  year 
about  40  per  cent  of  the  farms  had  silos  not  built  inside  the  barns.  The 
number  of  silos  does  not  agree  with  the  number  of  farms  feeding  silage, 
for  the  reason  that  on  some  farms  the  silos  were  built  in  the  barns  and  were 
included  with  the  value  of  the  barn.  Most  of  the  farms  have  milk  houses 
separate  from  the  barns,  and  64  per  cent  have  separate  ice  houses,  altho 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


291 


1 08  farmers  used  ice.  Often  one  building  is  used  as  both  a  milk  house  and 
storage  for  ice. 

The  charge  for  the  use  of  buildings  was  made  up  of  interest  at  5  per  cent 
on  the  average  value,  the  cost  of  new  buildings,  cost  of  repairs,  insurance, 
and  decreased  value.  When  buildings  were  worth  more  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  the  increase  in  value  was  deducted  to  determine  the  charge  for  their 
use.  This  was  then  apportioned  to  cows,  to  heifers,  to  herd  bulls,  and  to 
bulls  to  be  sold,  according  to  the  average  number  of  cattle  units  of  each 
class  on  hand  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

The  data  for  use  of  buildings  are  given  in  table  10: 

TABLE  10.     CHARGES  FOR  USE  OF  BUILDINGS,  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  172  HERD 
BULLS,  AND  76  BULLS  TO  BE  SOLD 


Number 
of  farms 
reporting 

Amount 

New  buildings  and  building  repairs: 
Purchased  lumber                        

7 

$     287  40 

Shingles  and  roofing  

18 

565  .  oo 

Paint  and  glass          

40 

427  .  70 

Hardware 

113  60 

Materials  from  farms  

17 

424.  50 

Sand  and  gravel 

6 

21    25 

Cement 

2OO    40 

Labor: 
Hired. 

18 

Q42  .45 

Farm                                     

26 

516.  16 

Horse                

7 

74.20 

Board  of  labor       

6 

26.  50 

New  buildings,  labor  and  materials  

10 

I  ,911  .  50 

Total 

86 

$5,  5IO  66 

Interest  on  $145  714  at  5  per  cent 

$7,285.70 

Insurance                                    .                        

455.OO 

Total  

$13,251  .36 

t>ess  increase  in  value*  

I  ,936.00 

Net  charge 

$11  ,  ^15  ^6 

Apportionment  of  cost 


Number 
of  farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

Cows  

140 

$8,705  6q 

Heifers  

146 

2,14';    21 

Herd  bulls  

126 

464  .  46 

Bulls  to  be  sold 

I 

2   OO 

*  Depreciation  on  buildings,  2.45  per  cent  of  average  value. 


2Q2 


BULLETIN  409 


Use  of  equipment 

The  value  of  the  different  kinds  of  equipment  used  by  dairy  cattle,  on 
hand  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  year,  and  the  number  of  farms 
having  each  kind,  are  given  in  table  1 1 : 


TABLE  ii. 


VALUE  OF  EQUIPMENT  USED  BY  2058  Cows,   1002  HEIFERS,  AND  172 
HERD  BULLS 


May 

I,    1914 

May  i 

,  iQiS 

Number 
of 
farms 

Value 
of  equip- 
ment 

Number 
of 
farms 

Value 
of  equip- 
ment 

Milk  cans        

120 

$1,040 

122 

$     997 

Coolers    

10 

3° 

ii 

14 

Testers,  bottles,  and  scales  

17 

44 

18 

46 

Separators 

I« 

^n 

16 

-\2\ 

Churns  and  workers 

AO 

85 

40 

8S 

Bottles  and  containers 

7 

ii 

7 

ii 

Milk  wagons 

9° 

i  ,710 

Q2 

1,686 

Milking  machines 

I 

250 

Ice  tools                                          

91 

237 

91 

•  236 

Feed  cutters               

i 

25 

I 

25 

Pumps       

i 

3 

I 

3 

Root  cutters     

4 

10 

2 

6 

Grinders  and  engines  

10 

788 

14 

794 

Milk  pails  and  strainers  

147 

314 

148 

332 

Extra  calf  pails  

31 

33 

33 

34 

Clipping  machines 

24 

us 

28 

141 

Veterinary  outfits 

II 

21 

17 

25 

Forks,  shovels,  and  other  barn  tools  .  .  . 
Wheelbarrows  and  trucks 

126 
41 

36o 

lOt 

122 

47 

364 
114 

Staffs  and  halters 

22 

23 

24 

28 

Total 

$5,263 

$S,  S^4 

Average  value,  $5.398. 
Increase  in  value,  $271. 


« 

More  than  three-fifths  of  the  value  of  equipment  is  in  milk  cans,  pails, 
strainers,  and  other  dairy  utensils,  and  wagons  used  in  hauling  milk. 
The  farmers,  with  the  exception  of  the  patrons  of  one  company,  owned  the 
cans  they  used.  Since  much  of  this  equipment  is  in  daily  use,  it  requires 
frequent  repairing  and  must  be  replaced  often.  Hence  its  upkeep  repre- 
sents the  largest  part  of  the  annual  cost  of  dairy  equipment. 

The  charge  for  the  use  of  equipment  includes  interest  at  5  per  cent  on 
the  average  value  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  year,  cost  of  equip- 
ment purchased  during  the  year,  repairs  on  equipment,  and  decreased 
value  less  any  increase  in  value.  This  cost  was  apportioned  for  each  farm, 
to  cows,  to  heifers,  and  to  herd  bulls,  according  to  the  number  of  animals 
and  the  amount  of  equipment  used  by  them.  The  charges  are  given  in 
table  12: 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


293 


TABLE  12.     CHARGES  FOR  USE  OF  EQUIPMENT,  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  AND  172 

HERD  BULLS 


. 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 

Interest  on  $5  398  at  5  per  cent*                                     

149 

$     260  qo 

Equipment  purchased                                            .        

IT.T. 

i  ,079  30 

Repairs                                                                

76 

230.00 

Total 

Si  ,  S7Q   2O 

Less  increase  in  value 

271  oo 

Net  charge                                                      .        

$1  ,308  20 

Apportionment  of  cost 


Number 

r\f 

farms 
having 

Amount 
charged 

expense 

Cows 

14.0 

$i  015  10 

Heifers 

1  18 

221    45 

Herd  bulls                                           .                                ... 

I  O2 

71   6s 

*  Depreciation,  19.  2  per  cent  of  average  value. 

Interest 

Separate  interest  charges  at  5  per  cent  were  made  on  the  average  value 
of  cattle  and  on  the  average  investment  in  feed  and  supplies  kept  on  hand 
for  cattle.  As  previously  indicated,  the  other  interest  charges  were 
included  under  use  of  pasture,  use  of  buildings,  and  use  of  equipment. 

The  average  value  of  cows,  heifers,  and  herd  bulls  was  $163,124.  Due 
to  averaging  each  record  separately,  the  value  here  used  is  $163,109, 


TABLE  13. 


INTEREST  ON  AVERAGE  VALUE  OF  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  AND  172 
HERD  BULLS 


Kind  of  stock 

Average 
number 
from 
inventory 

Average 
value 
from 
inventory 

Value 
used  in 
charging 
interest 

Interest 

at  5 

per  cent 

Number 
of  farms 
having 
expense 

Cows  . 

2  058 

$m,  152 

$!'*'*,  148 

$6,657.40 

140 

Heifers  under  one  year  
Heifers  one  year  or  over  
Bull  calves  to  be  kept  
Herd  bulls  one  to  two  years  .  . 
Herd  bulls  over  two  years  old 

532.5 
469.5 
67 
59  7 
45 

7,296 
16,338 
1,074 
2,162 
3,102 

•    23,626 
6,335 

1,181.30 
316.75 

146 
126 

Total  

$163,124 

$163,109 

$8,155-45 

BULLETIN  409 


the  interest  on  which  amounts  to  $8155.45.  Since  veals  and  bulls  to  be 
sold  are  kept  on  hand  for  only  a  short  time,  no  interest  was  charged  on 
their  value.  The  data  are  given  in  table  13. 

Interest  was  charged  to  the  dairy  enterprise  on  the  investment  in 
forage  for  the  average  length  of  time  the  forage  was  stored  before  it  was 
fed,  and  on  the  investment  in  concentrates  from  the  time  they  were 
paid  for  until  they  were  fed.  On  each  record  this  cost  was  distributed 
to  cows,  heifers,  and  herd  bulls,  according  to  the  numbers  of  animals 
kept  and  the  quantities  of  feed  used.  The  average  total  capital  so  invested 
was  $38,160,  or  about  $256  per  farm.  On  some  farms  keeping  heifers 
and  herd  bulls  the  interest  charge  on  feed  and  supplies  was  so  small  that 
it  was  not  separated.  The  data  are  given  in  table  14: 

TABLE  14.     INTEREST  ON  AVERAGE  VALUE  OF  FEED  AND  SUPPLIES  KEPT  ON  HAND 
FOR  2058  Cows,  1002  HEIFERS,  AND  172  HERD  BULLS 


All  herds 

Cows 

Heifers 

Herd  bulls 

Average 
value  of 
feed  and 
supplies 
on  hand 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Interest 
at  5 
per  cent 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

Number 
of 
farms 
having 
expense 

Amount 
charged 

$38,160 

149 

$1,908 

149 

$1,511.50 

120 

$305.50 

81 

$91.00 

Miscellaneous  costs 

All  remaining  expenses  were  classed  as  miscellaneous  costs,  and  are 
given  in  table  15.  Of  these,  ice,  veterinary  fees,  medicines  and  disinfec- 
tants, fly  protectors,  whitewash,  and  expenses  for  testing  milk,  were  the 
most  important.  Farmers  having  the  expense  for  milk  testing  estimated 
the  portion  of  this'  expense  that  should  be  charged  to  cows,  to  heifers, 
to  bulls  to  be  sold,  and  to  herd  bulls.  The  same  was  done  with  other 
items  not  wholly  chargeable  to  cows. 

The  average  amount  of  ice  stored  per  cow  was  1949  pounds. 

Returns 

Returns  from  dairy  cattle  on  the  farms  studied  were  classified  as  (i) 
milk  and  milk  products,  (2)  appreciation  on  cattle,  (3)  manure  recovered, 
(4)  miscellaneous  returns. 

Milk  and  milk  products 

Milk  sold. —  Of  the  149  farms,  52  sold  to  the  Empire  State  Dairy  Com- 
pany at  Windsor  and  i  to  this  company  at  Oquaga,  39  sold  to  Cloverdale 
Farms  Company  at  Binghamton,  18  sold  to  F.  W.  Jansen  at  Whitney's 
Point,  1 6  to  Bordens'  at  Tunnel,  7  to  Sheffield  Farms,  Slawson-Decker 
Company,  at  Conklin,  5  to  Bordens'  at  Whitney's  Point,  3  to  the  Broome 
County  Dairy  Company  at  Binghamton,  7  a  part  of  the  year  to  F.  W. 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


295 


Ill  I 


HH      T^-    HH          •     _     CO    CS      W 


O         r 
04          C< 


E   ^ 

i 


t^.        ID  ON  1^00 

<N  CO  IO   O 

co      CN  cs  c 


6  S'P 


O         M 

»OOO 


vO         CO 
O\       00 


ONOO  r>-  (N  \O  O   1-1 

IO*O      l-lC4t~>.OCO 


CO  CN   CO^O  00   CO  ro  t^  HH  \O 

IO    HH      HH      CO    l-l      1-1  O) 


iOOOOO>-iOcO 


COi-HONCOO<cOC<MMt-i 


Tota 
ding 


B 


296 


BULLETIN  409 


Jansen  and  a  part  of  the  year  to  Bordens'  at  Whitney's  Point,  and  i  a 
part  of  the  year  to  Cloverdale  Farms  Company  and  a  part  of  the  year  to 
the  Broome  County  Dairy  Company  at  Binghamton.  Milk  sold  to  Clover- 
dale  Farms  and  the  Broome  County  Dairy  Company  was  used  in  Bingham- 
ton, while  the  remainder  was  for  the  New  York  market. 

Practically  all  milk  was  sold  on  six-months  contracts  made  with  the 
milk  companies  on  October  i  and  April  i.  All  concerns  except  two  paid 
a  flat  price  for  milk  containing  a  minimum  percentage  of  butterfat.  This 
per  cent  was  3.7  for  one  concern,  and  3.8  and  4  per  cent  for  the  others. 
A  premium  was  paid  when  the  milk  tested  above  a  certain  percentage  speci- 
fied in  the  contract.  The  monthly  prices  paid  by  three  companies  are  given 
in  table  16.  Prices  paid  by  the  other  companies  were  about  the  same. 

TABLE  16.     MONTHLY  PRICES  PAID  FOR  MILK  BY  THREE  COMPANIES,  PER 

HUNDREDWEIGHT 


Company 
no.  i 

Company 
no.  2 

Company 
no.  3 

I9lf 

May  
June  

$1.20 
.10 

•35 
•55 
.80 

•95 

2.05 
2.05 

i-95 
i.  80 

1-75 
1.50 

$1.05 

.00 

•15 
•30 
.40 
.70 
.80 
.80 

-75 
•65 
.60 

*   -55 

$1.25 

.20 

•35 
-50 
.60 
.90 

2.00 
2.OO 

i  95 

1.85 

1.  80 
1.50 

July.  . 

August  

September  
October  

November 

December  

1915: 

January  .  .    . 

February  .  .  . 

March  

April  

Per  cent  of  butterfat  re- 
quired 

f4.o 

25 
45 

10  cents  a  hundred 
pounds  if  4.5  per 
cent  or  better 

2   cents    a    hundred 
pounds  for  each  5 
points  above  70 

3.7  (forAp 

25 
43 

10  cents  a  hundred 
pounds  if  3.8  per 
cent  or  better 

10  cents  a  hundred 
pounds  if  score  25 
on   equipment  43 
on  methods 

ril,  3.8) 

3    cents    a    hundred 
pounds   if    4.1    to 
4.5  per  cent  inclu- 
sive 
None 

Barn  score  required  : 
Equipment  
Methods  
Premiums  in  addition  to 
above: 
Butterfat  

Barn  score  

*  For  3.8-per-cent  milk  with  barn  score, 
t  Average  for  year. 


With  one  exception,  each  concern  had  an  inspector  visit  and  score  the 
premises  at  regular  intervals.  A  premium  was  paid  by  some  of  the  com- 
panies for  a  higher  score.  This  encouraged  the  production  of  clean 
milk.  One  company  furnished  the  lime  and  equipment,  and  assisted  the 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


297 


>0   I-H  O  iO  O^^-O  ^O  \O         O  OO   O   1-1   O 
M   (S   ro  lO^O   O^OO         Ooooovof 


c  J3      *     '" 

2"  K 


298 


BULLETIN  409 


farmers  in  whitewashing  their  barns  twice  a  year,  without  charge.  The 
figures  for  the  returns  from  milk  sold  are  given  in  table  17. 

Milk  products  sold. —  Only  seven  farms  sold  butter,  and  one  farm  sold 
200  pounds  of  cream.  The  figures  are  given  in  tables  18  and  19. 

Milk  and  milk  products  used. —  The  value  of  all  milk  used  on  each  farm 
was  calculated  by  multiplying  the  number  of  pounds  used  by  the  weighted 
average  price  received  for  all  milk  sold  from  the  farm.  Some  farmers 

TABLE  1 8.     RETURNS  FROM  MILK  PRODUCTS  SOLD  AND  MILK  AND  ITS  PRODUCTS 
USED  ON  FARMS,  2058  Cows 


Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 

Number 
of  pounds 
of  product 

Number 
of  pounds 
of  fat 

Price 

Total  value 

Milk  products  sold: 
Butter 

7 

i  015 

863 

$o  31 

$312  76 

Cream  
Total  milk  products  sold 

I 

200 

40 

1.50 

30.00 
$342  76 

Milk  used: 
Family  

147 

313,048 

12,522 

$1.63 

$5  ,103.33 

Hired  men  

Milk  products  used: 
Skimmilk: 
Hogs 

14 
10 

17,638 
30    7OO 

706 

1.72 

O.  20 

304.  16 
59  97 

Poultry  

i 

2,200 

o.  15 

3.30 

Buttermilk: 

21 

7   264 

O    22 

15   93 

Hogs  

10 

3  ,250 

o.  23 

7.  50 

Poultry 

I 

f  *  IOO 

o  20 

o  20 

Butter,  family  use  
Cream,  family  use  

36 
II 

5,656 

1,000 

4,808 
200 

0.29 
1.81 

i,633-97 
180.64 

Total  milk  and  its  products  used, 
except  that  fed  cattle  

19  139 

$7  309  oo 

Equivalent  in  pounds  of  milk*  

371  ,457 

Milk  used: 
Heifers 

134 

215  464 

8  619 

$i  63 

$3   i  i  7   77 

Veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold  
Bull  calves  to  be  kept  for  herd  bulls. 

94 
65 

193,535 
26,275 

7,741 
1,051 

1.62 
1.63 

3  ,126.91 
429.47 

Milk  products  used: 
Skimmilk: 
Heifers  

32 

96,068 

$0.18 

$171.17 

Veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold 

3   072 

o  20 

6   16 

Bull  calves  to  be  kept  for  herd  bulls 

8 

6,493 



0.17 

11.08 

$188  41 

Buttermilk: 
Heifers  

3 

i  ,300 

$o  19 

$2  45              $2.45 

Total    milk    and   its    products   fed 
cattle  

17   411 

$7   265  01 

Equivalent  in  pounds  of  milk* 

540  907 

*  Excluding  buttermilk. 

fed  more  milk  in  months  when  the  price  was  below  the  average  price  for 
the  year,  and  others  fed  more  when  the  price  was  above  the  average.  But 
the  quantity  used  in  the  house  was  practically  uniform  thruout  the  season. 
Since  the  months  in  which  milk  was  used  were  not  ascertained,  it  was 
necessary  to  use  the  average  yearly  price.  The  prices  used  in  calculating 
the  value  of  skimmilk  and  buttermilk  were  those  furnished  by  the  farmers. 
An  average  of  2130  pounds  of  milk  per  family  was  used.  The  figures  are 
given  in  table  18  and  summarized  in  table  19. 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


299 


.S* 

1 

,916.77 

ll 

rt  m 

> 

^ 

•9 

^•o 

H 

ro 

£ 

ro  10 

a 

Ov 

'  o 

o  : 

•*o 

«0 

i 

? 

o    • 

00       • 

Is 

0 

S 
0 

Pounds 

si 

P 

8 

0 

a   • 

S- 

ro 

ro     • 

ro  r^ 

| 

^ 

ro  M 
O  ro 

s 

oq 

Pounds 

vO      • 
10      • 

vO      • 

xO  0 

t^ 

o" 

1 

!! 

00     • 
0      • 

* 

1 

> 

(A 

~  : 

* 

-M 

. 

"2 

T-1 

M§ 

2"  . 

2" 

pg 

C 

O*  1-1 

M 

M  ; 

o\ 

<u 

N    Tj- 

000 

00       • 

0      • 

00 

M 
»O 

6 

& 

«* 

** 

S 

in 

ro     • 

ro 

r^ 

X) 

O  fO 

ro    • 

ro 

CO 

C 

O\O 

1/5     • 

V5 

£ 

IN    10 

roo 

HH 

OO      • 

ro    • 

00 

ro 

^S? 

xO     • 

^ 

o 

*      • 

• 

2 

O  I"*- 

oo     • 

00 

• 

^t1  O 

^1"    • 

rf 

fl 

^ 

N      • 

5 

s 

H 

|: 

Os 

£ 

O   1/5 

ro  ro 
ro-t 

\o    • 
r-    • 

0 

1      : 
"S 

tn     • 

g  : 

"a 

**~"o 

h 

rrT           O 

W          T) 

^o 

3 

^rS«S 

rt  p, 

0 

11 

3 

300  BULLETIN  409 

Appreciation  on  cattle 

On  most  farms  where  dairy  cattle  are  raised  to  replace  those  that  die 
and  those  that  are  sold,  the  increased  value  of  young  cattle  exceeds  the 
depreciation  and  all  losses  due  to  death.  On  the  farms  studied,  this  excess, 
or  appreciation,  amounted  to  $27,988,  or  12  per  cent  of  the  returns  from 
cattle.  Appreciation  and  depreciation  were  calculated  in  the  following 
manner : 

When  considering  the  entire  herd  as  a  unit,  cattle  were  charged  with 
the  first  inventory  and  all  purchases  of  dairy  cattle.  They  were  credited 
with  cattle  sold  or  used,  hides,  and  the  second  inventory. 

Cows  were  charged  with  the  inventory  at  the  beginning,  cows  purchased, 
and  heifers  that  became  cows.  They  were  credited  with  cows  sold  or 
slaughtered,  cow  hides,  and  the  inventory  at  the  end. 

Heifers  were  charged  with  the  first  inventories,  heifers  purchased,  and 
value  at  birth  of  heifers  born  during  the  year.  They  were  credited  with 
heifers  sold  and  slaughtered,  value  at  time  of  freshening  of  heifers  that 
freshened  during  the  year  for  the  first  time,  heifer  hides,  and  the  inventories 
at  the  end. 

Herd  bulls  were  charged  with  the  inventories  at  the  beginning,  herd 
bulls  purchased,  and  value  at  birth  of  bull  calves  born  during  the  year 
and  to  be  kept  for  future  service.  'They  were  credited  with  herd  bulls 
sold  or  slaughtered,  hides,  and  the  inventories  at  the  end. 

Veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold  were  charged  with  the  inventories  .at  the  begin- 
ning, purchases,  and  value  at  birth  of  veal  calves  and  of  bulls  to  be  sold 
that  were  born  during  the  year.  They  were  credited  with  veals  and  bulls 
sold  or  slaughtered,  hides,  and  the  inventories  at  the  end. 

A  summary  of  the  appreciation  or  depreciation  on  each  part  of  the 
enterprise  is  given  in  table  20. 

Calves  born  during  the  year  were  charged  to  heifers,  herd  bulls,  and 
veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold,  at  their  values  at  birth.  They  were  credited 
to  cows  but  were  not  included  in  the  returns  from  cattle.  The  data  are 
given  in  table  2 1 . 

Manure  recovered 

No  credit  was  given  for  manure  produced  on  pasture,  and  neither  was 
the  pasture  charged  with  it.  To  have  credited  and  charged  manure  in 
these  different  places  would  have  increased  the  total  costs  and  total  returns 
for  cattle  by  the  same  amount,  without  affecting  the  gain  or  loss  on  the 
enterprise  or  the  cost  of  producing  milk.  The  149  farmers  estimated 
that  20,642  tons  of  manure  was  recovered  from  cattle  for  use  on  crop  land. 
This  is  7.7  tons  per  cattle  unit,  there  being  2670.3  cattle  units. 

The  value  of  manure  depends,  not  only  on  the  composition  of  the  ration, 
but  also  on  the  proportion  and  kind  of  litter  and  especially  on  the  possible 
returns  from  its  use.  Estimates  as  to  its  value  at  the  barn  averaged  about 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


301 


3 

LOOO      •      • 

**  LO    •     • 

I 

N  ro     •         N      •      •  (S 

10 

g 

cfl 

£"  ':  i 

5 

t-j-     •      •  Oi 

P») 
00 

I 

1    s 

a  N    •    • 

M          ^  O       •      •   10 

'  ro     •     •  LO 

0> 

£  2 

1      S3 

F  :  : 

LO  t^  LO  LO  ro   ••     •  r» 

'N'    '. 

ro     . 

e 

3       uS 

3 

i  ; 

o 

—  -  ' 

w 

1 

|SS  : 

S 

^00      •    N      •      •      •  LO 

1 

00       • 

00     • 

13 

£    "  : 

5 

4^           •           •     •     •  ^" 

8 

<S     ' 

S; 

S    £ 

O\  LO  ro     • 

M   OO     ^  l-H                 •        •    Tf 

00  LO  ro         •     •  r- 

b 

I*! 

M                                   •   '    •    LO 

c 

£      ^ 

fe 

•*0  0      • 

(N     M    LO  IO                •        •    t- 

. 

O         r| 

<N    M    Tt     • 

O  «S  M          •     •  ro 

6*O      »H 

§ 

O\  O      •  t- 

O\  N       •    1-1 

0 
ro 

to    •  o    •    •    •  LO 
.«  :2:  :  :*. 

s 

•    IN 

K?3 

O  00     •  t~- 

O 
LO 

00  \O       •             •      •      •   LO 

•     •     •  ro 

0 
10 

1* 

1 
o 

1 

j 

2 

y 
"S5 

0 

c>  ^  •  •^- 

<N   ro     •  0 
CM      •  ro 

00   t^  LO  O       •      •      •   t~- 

O    M    LO  LO      •      •      -00 

MM*                    ...    0 

1 

j 

10 

vl 

J! 

O\  r^     •  ro 
TtrJ-    •  0 

>O   IS  00  00      •      •      •   Ov 

LO  tf      •    1-1 

LO 

OO 

o\ 

00  O      •  O  t-  O  O   M 

00  O      •  O\  M  \O  M   O 

0\00        •    LOM    M 

I 

00       • 
OO       • 

C/3 

E 

3? 

O   M      •   t- 

LO   M         -1-1 

10 

00 

LOOO      •          t^                t~ 

ro 

c7  : 

£ 

<& 

*• 

6* 

* 

jf 

LO 

LO                LO 

<3 

—  a; 

•    .    ;    . 

J.  ^4.  v^  .4.  rfOO    1-1    O 

£->  ^ 

t^oo    •  o 

O.  r^  ro  ro  O  LONO 

i 

o  S 

c 

O  <N     •  ro 

ro          • 

_,  ro  M  M  ro  w        •* 
M"                                  ro 

||  I        III 

ii$ 

IF—  i 

~-  Mb  « 
"•SS^ 
>.^>.^ 
JSia  M-M 
^-d.SS 

__,  Qi  (-,  •73 

3 

|jp  :|  :  J  2 

3 

ationj.  .  .  . 
lation  

I|1I 

a  3  o  « 

Ol^OQffi 

H 

lilllali 

H 

££ 
SS 
Big 

<Q 

£:i 


ai 


X)  C 

•§'« 


>  c 

II 

«5 

II 

II 

J5  o 


'53  -C 

rC     (0 


. 

£5^  fc 


302 


BULLETIN  409 


M 

o 

§ 
g 

°^S            : 

**          _             ' 

1 

M          (N                                •      •      •   IO 

1 

VI 

a)  rd 

|1 

^^•°  5 

^Oto            ; 

1C         M          MM             •.•  00 

13 

JjioJ 

10  fO  M 

10          O             MM                 •        •        •    O 

•e 

1 

ri 

s 

1 

•>o'o 
to 

.       vO 

•«>   M 

c 

s 

n  n  nr 

I 

1 

H 

i'g  ; 

O            N 
10            

0 
00     • 

"rt 

3 

H 

:«g     j 

oo             

c  ; 

1 

D 

CO       •      • 

oo    •    • 

00 

cr 

*jj  MB  H:1 

5 

vO     • 

ri 

1 

Z                o 

M        •       '               • 

0 
O            •         M  ~3           ... 
ro         •                         ... 

0 

|  S3^'| 

•*  :  :     : 

-3-          •        OOC           •     •     -00 

5 

0) 

tooc     • 

00  rf    • 

j 

r-       ro         O 
o\     t-       ^r 

O        to          *                .     .      -  ro 
t»                     n 

0 

0 

£ 
i 

jN 

M    O        • 
Tj-  t-( 

0        t-          ON 

0 

Jl"l 

O    M        • 

Or-         0 

S 

e 

cl 

J3 
13 

00.- 

-t 

n 

0       00           -00           ...(->. 

a      o  •-      •  M        •    •    •  n 

O\        CO          •                •••  to 

'5 
£ 

"2 

.4) 

W 

3jQ    O    3 

to  to    • 

M    0        • 

to  M 

^  : 

0 
£lO                            10            •      •      -CO 
^10       t-       M  ro 

o"   '. 

J5                   IM 

tO  M       • 

•00             M     t               •        •        •    M 

<N                                             •      •      -0 

I 

.8 

15 

I 

-t 

CO     • 

I 

||o| 

0  N  10           • 

(N             •          N    PO            •      •      -   (M 

i 

K 

c           w 

IO  N   10 

(N          •        M  ro         •     •     -O 
.     .     -NO 

On  hand  May  i,  1914.  . 
Purchased  during  year.  . 
Born  during  year  
Heifers  that  became 
cows  

| 

£     eg     Q     ffiK     QQO 

1 

Appreciation  
Depreciation  

a 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


303 


$1.25  a  ton.  This  does  not  include  the  cost  of  hauling  it  to  the  field. 
Manure  was  credited  to  cattle  on  each  farm  at  this  rate.  The  credit  was 
then  apportioned  to  cows,  to  heifers,  and  to  herd  bulls,  according  to  the 
average  inventory  of  cattle  units.  No  attempt  was  made  to  calculate 

TABLE  21.    NUMBER  OF  CALVES  BORN  DURING  THE  YEAR,  AND  VALUE  AT  BIRTH 


Num- 
ber of 
farms 

Number 

Per  cent 

Value 

Value  of 
each 
at 
birth 

Heifers  to  be  raised  or  to  be  sold  
Bulls  to  be  kept  
Bulls  sold  or  to  be  sold  
Calves  vealed  or  to  be  vealed  
Calves  deaconed                               .  .  . 

140 

50 

42 

137 

CI 

733 
54 
75 
937 
162 

37 
3 
4 

48 
8 

$2,232 
226 

3ii 
1,650 

$3-05 
4.19 

4-15 
1.76 

Deacon  hides                                     .  .  . 

so 

IS8 

169 

i  07 

Total  calves  born  alive      .... 

147 

1  ,061 

IOO 

$4  ,  S88 

$2    ^4. 

Live  calves  per  100  cows       .... 

9S 

Calves  born  dead  

3S 

S^ 

Dead  calf  hides  

13 

21 

20 

Total  credited  to  cows  
Cows  that  aborted  

2S 

41 

$4,608 

Farrow  cows 

47 

07 

the  value  of  manure  on  the  basis  of  rations  fed,  for  the  reason  that  other 
factors  have  an  equal,  if  not  greater,  influence.  Neither  was  it  considered 
practical  to  vary  the  credit  to  different  classes  of  stock  on  the  basis  of 
the  composition  of  the  rations.  The  value  of  manure  was  $9.66  per  cattle 
unit.  This  was  u.i  per  cent  of  the  total  returns  from  cattle. 
The  data  for  manure  recovered  are  given  in  table  22. 

TABLE  22.     MANURE    RECOVERED   FROM    2058   Cows,    1002    HEIFERS,    172    HERD 
BULLS,  AND  76  BULLS  TO  BE  SOLD 


Manure  recovered 

All 
herds 

Cows 

Heifers 

Herd 
bulls 

Bulls  to 
be  sold 

Tons  

20  ,  642 

IS,  917 

3,870 

8si 

4. 

Value  at   $1.25   a  ton  at   the 
barnyard 

$25  802 

$19   896   64. 

$4.   8^7   6s 

$1    063    21 

$4.    SO 

Miscellaneous  returns 

Two  farms  received  $157  for  hauling  neighbors'  milk,  three  farms 
received  $52  for  boarding  cattle,  and  fifteen  farms  received  $142  for  the 
use  of  herd  bulls.  These  receipts  were  included  under  miscellaneous 
returns  and  represented  0.2  per  cent  of  the  total  returns  from  the  enter- 
prise. The  figures  for  miscellaneous  returns  are  given  in  table  23 : 


304 


BULLETIN  409 
TABLE  23.     MISCELLANEOUS  RETURNS 


Number 
of 

Total 

Credi 

ted  to 

Item 

farms 
having 
receipt 

amount 
received 

Cows 

Herd 
bulls 

Hauling  neighbors'  milk 

2 

$ici7 

$IS7 

Breeding  fees 

I  c 

14.2 

$142 

Boarding  cows   '  . 

-z 

S2 

S2 

Total  „  

$^SI 

$2OQ 

$142 

Summary  of  costs  and  returns 

The  separate  items  of  costs  and  returns  for  the  whole  enterprise,  and 
for  cows,  heifers,  herd  bulls,  and  veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold,  given  in  previous 
tables,  are  summarized  in  table  24. 

Cost  of  producing  milk  and  butterfat 

In  this  investigation  two  different  methods  of  calculating  the  cost  of 
producing  milk  or  butterfat  were  used. 

By  one  method,  considering  the  entire  herd  as  a  unit,  all  returns  from 
the  herd  except  milk  sold  were  deducted  from  the  total  herd  costs,  and 
the  difference  was  considered  the  cost  of  milk  or  fat  sold.  Any  expense 
for  raising  young  cattle  to  replace  the  herd  was  included  in  determining 
the  cost  of  production.  The  cost  calculated  in  this  manner  is  designated 
thruout  this  bulletin  as  the  "  herd  cost  "  of  milk  or  butterfat. 

By  the  second  method,  the  returns  from  cows  other  than  milk  sold 
were  deducted  from  the  total  cost  of  keeping  cows  to  determine  the  cost  of 
milk  or  fat.  Bull  service  was  charged  at  cost.  The  raising  of  heifers  to 
replace  the  herd  was  considered  separately,  and  any  loss  or  gain  on  them 
was  not  charged  nor  credited  to  milk  production.  The  cost  determined 
in  this  manner  is  designated  thruout  this  bulletin  as  the  "  cow  cost  "  of 
producing  milk  or  butterfat. 

The  herd  cost  and  the  cow  cost  of  milk  are  practically  identical.  The 
herd  cost  is  the  simpler  to  calculate,  because  it  is  not  necessary  to  separate 
the  feed,  labor,  and  other  costs  for  heifers,  bulls,  and  other  cattle.  But 
the  quantities  of  feed  and  labor  used  by  the  herd  per  hundred  pounds  of 
milk  are  not  so  useful  as  the  quantities  used  by  cows  only. 

In  purebred  herds,  the  value  of  young  stock  for  breeding  purposes  is 
sometimes  so  great  as  to  make  the  herd  cost  of  producing  milk  very  low. 
The  investment  in  cows,  depreciation  on  cows,  amount  of  feed  and  labor, 
bull  service,  and  all  other  costs,  are  higher  for  purebred  than  for  grade 
herds.  But  the  greater  value  of  the  calves  at  birth  usually  more  than 
offsets  these  higher  costs,  so  that  the  cow  cost  of  producing  milk  is  also 
usually  less  in  purebred  than  in  grade  herds. 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


305 


888  :::  :8 

8  8  8^°^vo  2  °t-  °^8  «  8  8 

9 

£    85 

•-a 

oo  N  M     •    •     •      oo 
m  M  c*    •    •    •      co 

oo  10  r^    •    •    •       co 

O   tOOO   ^    Th  iO  iO  t^*  I-H   rOOO   M  vO 

f 

rj       ON  10 

•*        0  VO 
CO        COM 

rj    CM    <*"}                             o\ 

_           ._           I*T\  (Vi         \_n                        i/^i  ro 

K/^ 

t-N^     fN^ 

> 

3-  »;•[.:: 

£ 

5 

» 

w 

^ 

o 

rj 

!!BBI!I1I!!!I 

5    OT    W 

b  fa 

5  C  G 

p,  °  °    •    •    •    •    • 

o  o 

g 

^H  coo     _ 

<J 

lor^oo     

ON  l^.  M     ' 

;;  10  i-T  ;;;;;;;;; 

oo     r    r    ' 

Per  cent 

_C     M     HH     M          •          •          -00 

82S0'  :  :  :* 

CO  ONOO  00  M  t^  10  ^-00   HH      •     •  10 

vOONOOOrfOfOOO      '      <HH 
10         (N 

O 

8 

0         CO 

8888  :  :  :8 

SO  10  10  ONVO   O  »0  O   0      •      •  O 
OvOfxll>«cOM'^-OO      •      -O 

R 

"£.    8 

-1 

ON  ON  O  f^»    •      •      •   I-H 
M  \5   t^           •      •      •   10 

\O   O  t^-vO   ^"lOOO  lOOO  co    •      -co 
OOOOvOoOOOi-iOiOOOO     •      -i-i 
P>l  O  r>-OO  vO   CO  CO  i-i  ON  i-i     •      •  *>• 

00 

M          Ov             rt 

^-     o         <^ 

CO        co            >> 

1 

^.^•Oj                   •  M 

CO   °*     10   ""'     HH     M      ^ 

1 

^          "o 

bo 

'5 

£3 

c 

•r- 

^^ 

& 

*d              •    •    • 

•     •   w  a,     ......... 

JB 

-g 

g  £  c  a   '   '   '  ^ 
Q  o  o  o    '       '  o 

'•'•  o  o    '•'••••'•'•'•'• 

« 

a 

o 

.    .^^    

'  ^ 

g 

^^ 

^Iw      ^ 

CN|   ON  r^  C^      "      *      *   CS 

*          *      hH      (>1 

N 

'   00     hH          * 

*   CO 

1 

6 

3 

c 

< 

D    " 

~    CS    COCN      •      •      .10 

vOt^-t^-OOO   n   rOTfiO^   O*O 

oo      oo  oo      u 

2 

1 

D 

a 

H 

:  :  : 

i 
I 

G                *° 

H                 ^ 

,*Q                                -4-» 

rt 

*  j^ 

O                     -O 

aJ     ' 

^G               c 

x—  *S 

a    '    '    '    ' 

-M             <U          rt 

1-^4 

:|  :•:::: 

.......    .£    .... 

§           ^          § 

::::::::  8  :  •  :  : 

?  u  1 

3    *u  %M 

*—  *  ^•^     »c 

.  ^-»     

j3       -5^ 

4J  4-J  -M         I-, 

.     CX      

w     --0  w'     • 

O   cJ   O       «i 

;  o  .  x  ;  .  i 

'"0     "P  ^ 

"^  *-^  "Tl  P^H  "Tl         M 

!    I    .    •    •    '    .      c    •  '  u  o 

7^   0^^^       a 

it  ;ls;ig:  :: 

6 

-|J    dj   &      .  j*    O 

j 

Returns: 
Other  than  milk  s< 
Milk  products  s 
Milk  and  its  pn 
except  that  fe 
Milk  and  its  pn 

*  Fat  calves  sold,  sla 

306 


BULLETIN  409 


:  8^"8 

5- 

?! 

COO 
vO   O 

8§ 

o 

-i 

•  06  vd   ON 

d 

(N 

(N    r4- 

vO      • 

,3 

^vSci'S 

s 

oo  oo 

CO  5= 

a 

~ 

^ 

*. 

> 

•     Tl-ON 

CO 

M 

H-l     IO 

J> 

^ 

^ 

HH 

^  1 

,«t 

6 

'    V) 

1 

d 
p 

;§  ; 

1 

o 

j^^^ 

.-* 

a 

1  ^ 

M 

!  "^ 

rj- 

& 

0          •      «      <N 

(S          •      I-H     O 

IO 

CO 

0     • 

8  : 

PH 

8:88 

s, 

W 

OO    N 

sS 

2-1 

00       •    C^'  i-i 

(N| 

oi 

,4-  ^ 

•H-  P-I 

13 

oo    •  o  10 

ON     •  00   CO 

ON 

lo 

CO  ON 

Ov^ 

'rt 

>** 

t~>.     •    iO 

^ 

^ 

co^d" 

oo 

fti 

1 

£ 

Si 

CO^= 
(S     | 

§ 

^—  j 

s 

^C 

m 

•^a 

id 

fe 

'.   w 

a 

£• 

a 

;  o 

1 

!    ! 

r*- 

Q 

* 

OJ 

a 

'•  ^*- 

OJ 

3 

^ 

;  o" 

CO 

« 

•^J- 

< 

! 

2" 

H 

<u 

O   •-   01   CO 

t^ 

3 

E 

H 

!. 

2 

II 

^ 

^ 

1 

"§        ! 

1 

a        ! 
"8 

a 

C             '^ 

80J 
r^   w 

1 

9    ^ 

»1 

i 

1    1  ' 

f|8l   s 

c/r 

w'     ' 

Ija 

llflcl 

3 

E5 

1 

lj 

HI 

StfE 

a;.^  <u 

c  ^  <j  o  ^  ^ 

Z3 

H  ^ 

-^a^ 

lo 

s 

1 

8^1 

ffi 

O      O 

AN  ECONOMIC  STLDY  OF  DAIRYING 


307 


8.  o  o  o  I-H    •    • 
•      O      O      HH      ON        •          • 

^••••0     0 
0----0     0 

o" 

I 

o 

> 

^      :           ^  :  : 

rj-     .                     .    CN       •                     ....    10 

2s 

w                           w   w      *      ' 

r^H 

i-£-J                                              r^-J    f£j 

3 

§         a£§§    :    : 

tJB 

a 
1 

a    llaa  .-  : 

i 

o        ;       CN  CN  «o   ;    ; 

rO           '    X      '   O   »O     '      ' 

13 
,« 

HH           •               re  rO     •      • 

> 

t/3 

1 

a 

13 

O        O  O  O  oo  r*>»    •  o 

o      o  o  o  o  •<*•  •  o 

OO          ^*  HN  vO    ^    O^     •  ^O 
O        r^  ON              rj-     •   ro 

lOOiOiO-vO'OiO         O      •      •      •   O 

10  o  10  10    •  ^"O  r^      o    •     •    •  o 

rf*  HH    ON             •  ^O    r>»  HH           ON     •       •       •    CN 

O      HH      HH                     •      Tf              CO 

10 

1 

£ 

-»j 
a 

C/3                                     O3     C/3 

*T3                             '^  ^O 

I         1   1   1   0    0      '      ' 

';     §§   :   :   :   :      :   :   :  :   : 

1 

rO        "^        ON  fO  iO     '      ' 

O         00    HH    cO  ON  t--     '      ' 

'      '   ON  <T>     '      '      '      '            

< 

°1              C5     l^.    HH     "^t    ^1        •          • 

00         00  00         \O  \O      •      • 

e 

1 

8     888-^:^8 

O^       O  '^"'O  r^*  ^H  .       o 
to       t^*  *^        ^^  ^o       ON 

OO      fN      O    OO          •      CO    HH      HH                IO        *                     *     (N) 

ON  ON\O  00      •   rj-  04  00         O      •            -00 

OOCNHHHH          -HHCM>-H                CO        '                     •      >-> 
(^              ^-                  .     a                M          • 

* 

s 

CO 

• 

| 

w                      'wwco* 

•          •                               •          •                     •                    

»^                                 T^  '(J  *^ 

r/) 

i 

-*-> 

|      S^g§|§ 

:  :  3  3  :  :•     :      :  :  :  :  : 

3 

a     °  3  B  aaa 

.  .^^  .  . 

-    • 

2 

\O         iO        ONOO   rf  O 

^h  ON 

^ 

£ 

rO  *O 

< 

"I         lOVO  00    °.  ^t  ^ 

•   •  JJ  N-  

vo          COCO          ON- 

'.'.**      

a 

; 

HH          CN    tOCNOOOOOO   uo 

•Ot^.tvOOOfNcO        rJ-iOHHOiO 

oo             oo 

7 

6- 

i 

H 

,    '• 

S         :  :  :  :  : 

:::::::  :J  ::::: 

i'S  ta 

'n 

3   >> 

oS                 

::::::::  g  :  :^  :  : 

*    M  -M 

,j>                  .... 

s   •   •  3   :   • 

**"^  O^ 

a 
8~ 

::::::::  w  :•    ^  .  : 

..   •  §  g 

•d 

x           <u 

^)                    C/3 

::::::::!:    1  1  : 

T3  S  ^3   X 

111! 

!  ill!1 

^        <u     _    ^^4 

a      ^^'§1    • 
_g|go  |  l^ll 

«t5co      Qc^c^^CQcS 
CJ 

in 

13 

!!^ 
I!!!! 

308 


BULLETIN  409 


•a 

8.  o     • 
.   10     • 

&3 

| 

13 

vd    •  4-  • 

oo     • 

6   ON 

00  00 

0 

£  :      : 

£  + 

3 

4, 

i|1 

i 

^n 

1 

;  "*"   ; 

•  • 

-1 

o-«o 

O     •  (N  O 
ON    •  ro  ^ 

ro    •  "Q  HH 

11 

\      \ 

3- 

£  :- 

• 

I 

o 

'S 

; 

0) 

f 

a 

g 

oo 

;  .  a  . 

o 

.  _o 

a 

••!-(• 

.      •   IO     • 

.    •  oo    • 

§•   10     • 
.  \O 

VO     HH 

3 

r>.    •  !•>«    • 

TJ-OO 

1 

00      •    CO     • 
00      •  00      • 

<N    Tj- 

r^oo 

e 

5  ::*  : 

tfi.  1 

U-I 

o 

;  o    ; 

: 

•      • 

^jrf 

•  oo      • 

'.'.'.  ^  '. 

a 

OO  O   >-i  Ol   ro 

>-l     C<     (N)     C<    C< 

tj 

IS 

a 

•    •' 

?S     :  i 

.1  : 

• 

fl  **     •     • 

II    ll 

§  i 

|    \ 

fc'1      i   » 

.eturns  (concluded}: 
Other  than  milk  sold 
Milk  and  its  pro 
cattle  v  
Appreciation  on  c£ 
Calves  and  calf  hi< 
Manure  
Miscellaneous.  .  .  . 

I1 

1 

3 

Total  returns  
rofit  or  loss  

.  ^  :  o 

w  co     .  O< 

6  8  --a 
1^  ;l 

11  1| 

j  Chnrged  to  CCWP. 

PH 

U         0 

AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


309 


The  cost  includes  delivering  to  the  receiving  stations.  Prices  are  paid 
for  milk  delivered.  In  order  to  be  comparable  the  cost  of  production  on 
different  farms  should  therefore  include  the  cost  of  delivery. 

A  comparison  of  the  herd  cost  and  the  cow  cost  of  producing  milk  and 
butterf at  is  given  in  table  2  5 : 

TABLE  25.     SUMMARY    OF    COST    OF    PRODUCING    AND    DELIVERING    TO    MARKET 
104,732  HUNDREDWEIGHT  OF  MILK  CONTAINING  420,673  POUNDS  OF  BUTTERF  AT 


Herd  cost 

Cow  cost 

(2058  cows,  1002  heifers,  172 
herd  bulls,  377  veals,  and  76 
bulls  to  be  sold) 

(2058  cows) 

Per 

hundred 
pounds 
of  milk 
sold 

Per 
cent 

Per  pound 
of  but- 
terfat 

Per 
hundred 
pounds 
of  milk 
sold 

Per 
cent 

Per  pound 
of  but- 
terfat 

Costs: 
Grain  

$o  .  460 
o.  236 
0.485 

O.  Ill 

20.  i 
10.3 

21.  I 

4.8 

$o.  1146 
0.0587 
o.  1207 
0.0276 

$0.409 
0.215 
0.389 
0.089 

2O.  2 

10.6 
19.2 
4-4 

$0.  IOI9 
0.0535 
0.0968 

0.0222 

Succulent  feed  
Dry  forage 

Pasture  

Total  feed 

$1.292 

0.020 
0.523 
0.018 
0.188 

o.  108 

0.012 
O.078 
0.018 
0.002 

56.3 
0.9 

22.8 

0.8 

8.2 

4-7 
0.5 
3-4 
0.8 
O.I 

i  .  5 

$0.3216 
o  .  0049 
o.  1302 
0.0045 
o  .  0468 
0.0269 
0.0031 
0.0194 
0.0045 
0.0004 

$1  .  IO2 

0.016 
0:472 
1  0.016 
0.188 
0.083 

O.OIO 

0.064 
0.014 

O.O02 
O.OI7 
0.055 

0.033 

54-4 
0.8 
23-3 
0.8 
9-3 
4.1 
o.S 
3-  1 
0.7 

O.I 

0.8 
o.S 
1.6 

$0.2744 
o  .  0040 
o.  1174 
o  .  0040 
0.0468 
0.0207 
0.0024 
0.0158 
0.0036 
o  .  0004 

0.0043 
0.0136 
0.0083 

Bedding  
Human  labor 

Horse  labor  
Hauling  milk  
Use  of  buildings  

Use  of  equipment  
Interest  on  cattle 

Interest  on  feed  and  supplies  
Breeding  fees 

Cost  of  keeping  herd  bulls  

Depreciation  on  cows  
M  iscellaneous 

0.035 

0.0088 

Total  costs 

$2.294 

100.  0 

$0.5711 

$2.072 

100.  0 

$0.5157 

Returns  other  than  milk  sold: 
Milk  products  sold  
Milk  and  its  products  used  on  farm, 
except  that  fed  cattle 

$0.003 
0.070 
0.267 

0.247 
0.003 

$0.0008 
0.0174 
o  .  0665 

0.0613 
0.0008 

$0.003 

0.070 
0.070 

0.044 
o.  190 

O.002 

$0.0008 

0.0174 
0.0173 

0.0109 

0.0473 

0.0005 

Milk  and  its  products  fed  cattle.  .  . 
Appreciation  on  cattle  ,  .  .  . 
Calves  and  calf  hides  

Manure  
M  iscellaneous 

Total  returns,  other  than  milk 
sold  
Cost  of  milk  or  butterfat  at  market  . 

$0.590 
$1.704 

$o.  1468 
$0.4243 

$0.379 

$1.693 

$0.0942 
$0.4215 

The  gross  herd  charges  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk  sold  were  $2.29, 
but  the  returns  other  than  milk  sold  amounted  to  59  cents  per  hundred 
pounds.  The  herd  cost  of  milk,  therefore,  was  $1.70  per  hundred  pounds  sold. 

The  gross  cow  charges  were  $2.07  per  hundred  pounds,  and  the  returns 
other  than  milk  sold  were  38  cents.  Hence,  the  cow  cost  of  milk  was  $1.69 
per  hundred  pounds  sold. 

The  herd  cost  and  the  cow  cost  were  practically  the  same,  the  former 
being  i.i  cents  per  hundred  pounds  higher.  In  other  words,  the  loss  on 
heifers,  above  the  gain  on  veals  and  bulls  to  be  sold,  increased  the  cost  of 
milk  production  only  by  this  amount. 


3io 


BULLETIN  409 


The  gross  herd  charges  were  57.1  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat  sold.  The 
returns  other  than  for  milk  sold  were  14.7  cents,  so  that  the  net  herd  cost 
per  pound  of  butterfat  was  42.4  cents. 


ft*;.   t 

.       •     •     • 

.:.'•"•  ••'•'; 

%•••  •/ 

:;:/•: 

•*•*•*  r»«* 

*  •  *  *  •* 

•  • 

*  ••  ••« 

*    • 

0                      $0.50                  $1.00                  $1.50                   $2.00                  $2.£0   '             $3.00                    $3. 

FlG.    53-       VARIATION    IN    HERD    COST    OF    PRODUCING    MILK,    149    FARMS 

The  cow  charges  were  51.6  cents  per  pound  of  butterfat.  The  returns, 
except  for  milk  sold,  were  9.4  cents,  making  the  net  cow  cost  per  pound  of 
butterfat  sold  42.2  cents. 


Per   cent 

of  all 
mi!k  sold 


$0.80 


$1.17 


$1.38  $1.63        $1.87  $2.14          $2.30 

Cost  per  too  pounds  -in  1915 

FlG.    54.       VARIATION    IN    HERD    COST    OF    PRODUCING   MILK,    149    FARMS 


$2.81 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


S        3«w 

CD      c  o 


OMN  r-Tf  POO  Ov-o 
01  Ov  ^  Tf  PO  POO  ^i~ 


)  PO  <N   t^- 
1/5  PO  <N 


NMOlOM 
O  CO  <N  POOO 
OMH  0  r-  't 


PO  O  t^O  PO  < 


i8 

lo 


-»J          ^,    OT 

c     S  P 

Ml 

aj       S^ 
On        Co 


^"o 

^ 
If 


3I2 


BULLETIN  409 


When  the  calculations  were  based  on  the  total  amount  of  milk  or  butter- 
fat  produced,  the  cow  cost  of  production  was  practically  the  same  as  when 
the  milk  or  fat  sold  was  used.  The  cow  cost  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk 
produced  was  $1.689,  and  the  cost  per  hundred  pounds  sold  was  $1.693. 
The  cow  cost  of  fat  was  42  cents  per  pound  produced,  or  42.2  cents  per 
pound  sold. 

The  lowest  herd  cost  of  milk  production  was  56  cents  per  hundred 
pounds.  To  increased  value -on  purebred  cows  and  higher  values  of  the 
calves  at  birth  this  low  cost  was  due.  The  highest  cost  was  $3.19  per 
hundred  pounds.  Of  the  farms  studied,  48  per  cent  produced  milk  at 
less  than  the  average  cost,  but  54  per  cent  of  the  milk  was  produced  at 
less  than  the  average  cost.  The  more  efficient  farms  produce  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  product.  The  average  cost  of  all  milk  produced  below 
the  average  cost  was  $1.39  per  hundred  pounds,  and  of  all  milk  at  the 
average  cost  or  above,  $2.06  per  hundred  pounds. 

Variations  in  the  herd  cost  of  producing  milk  on  these  farms  are  shown 
in  table  26  and  in  figures  53  and  54. 

Quantities  of  feed  and  labor  per  unit  of  product 

The  amounts  of  feed  and  labor  used  by  all  herds,  per  hundred  pounds 
of  milk  produced,  per  hundred  pounds  produced  except  that  fed  cattle, 
and  per  hundred  pounds  sold,  are  given  in  table  27: 

TABLE  27.     AMOUNTS  OF  FEED  AND  LABOR  USED  BY  2058  Cows,   1002  HEIFERS, 
172  HERD  BULLS,  AND  76  BULLS  TO  BE  SOLD,  PER  HUNDRED  POUNDS  OF  MILK 


Per  100 

pounds  of  i 

nilk 

Produced 

Produced, 
except 
that 
fed  cattle 

Sold 

Pounds 

Grain  

28.3 

2Q    7 

30.8 

Succulent  feed  

qi  .6 

06  i 

99.6 

Dry  forage 

02    7 

Q7     -3 

100  8 

Hours 

Hauling  milk  

O   ^5 

O    V7 

O    10 

Other  labor  ,  

7     « 

•j.    ci 

-j  64. 

Horse  labor: 
Hauling  milk 

o  m 

O    ^d. 

o  s6 

Other  labor  

on 

O    12 

O    12 

Capital  invested  for  milk  production 

The  average  investment  for  milk  production  was  $3381  per  farm,  $244.78 
per  cow,  and  $4.42  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk  or  $1.10  per  pound  of 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


butterfat  produced.     These  values  would  have  been  higher  in  1920,  due 
to  a  higher  price  level  for  all  commodities.     The  data  are  given  in  table  28 : 


TABLE  28.     CAPITAL    INVESTED    FOR    THE    PRODUCTION    OF    11,385,590 
OF  MILK  CONTAINING  457,223  POUNDS  OF  BUTTERFAT,  149  HERDS 


POUNDS 


Total 
capital 

Per 
cent 

Per 

farm 

Per 
cow 

Per  100 

pounds 
of  milk 
produced 

Per 

pound  of 
butterfat 
produced 

Cows  

$1-1-2   14.8 

26  4. 

$804. 

$64.   70 

$1    17 

$O   2Q 

Herd  bulls  
Other  cattle  

6,335 
23,626 

i-3 
4.7 

42 
ISO 

3.08 

II  48 

0.05 
O.2I 

O.OI 
O   OS 

Buildings  

145,714 

28  9 

078 

70.80 

1.28 

O    \2 

Equipment 

C      -7Q8 

I    i 

16 

2    62 

O   OS 

O   OI 

Pasture  land 

jcj    ^76 

•JO   o 

I  016 

77  c6 

I     Til 

O    "\\ 

Feed  and  supplies  ..... 

38,160 

7.6 

256 

18.54 

0-33 

0.09 

Total   .    ... 

$SO^  ,  757 

IOO    O 

$-z    -181 

$24.4.   78 

$4.   4.2 

$i  10 

Interest  at  5  per  cent 

$25,188 

$169 

$12    24 

$O   221 

$o  oss 

Effect  of  changes  in  the  price  of  labor,  of  feed,  and  of  other  factors, 
on  the  cost  of  milk  production 

The  cost  of  producing  milk  for  any  particular  farm  or  for  any  region 
is  not  constant.  Whenever  the  price  of  cows,  the  price  of  feed,  the  value 
of  land,  or  wages,  change,  then  the  cost  of  milk  production  also  changes. 
Hence,  when  interpreting  results  of  milk-production  studies,  it  is  important 
to  keep  in  mind  the  possible  effect  of  such  changes  on  cost. 

In  table  29  are  shown  the  approximate  changes  in  cost  made  by  the 
change  of  a  single  item,  provided  all  other  costs  remain  constant.  An 
increase  in  any  item,  however,  is  accompained  by  changes  in  practically 
all  other  items.  For  example,  if  any  cost  increases,  the  cost  of  cows,  and 

TABLE  29.     EFFECT    OF    CHANGES    IN    PRICES    OF    LABOR,    FEED,    AND    OTHER 
FACTORS,  ON  COST  OF  PRODUCTION  WHEN  THE  ENTIRE  HERD  is  CONSIDERED 


If  other  conditions  remained  exactly  the  same, 
a.  change  of: 

The  cost  of 
producing  100 
pounds  of  milk 

The  cost  of 
producing 
i  pound  of 
butterfat 

i  per  cent  in  the  interest  rate  

Cents 

4.   4. 

Cents 
j   j 

$10  an  acre  in  the  value  of  pasture  land  

-I      -3 

o  8 

i  cent  an  hour  of  human  labor  

o-  o 

1  8 

OQ 

$i  a  ton  for  grain  

I    4. 

$i  a  ton  for  succulent  feed  .  . 

4.   6 

0.4 
J       J 

$i  a  ton  for  dry  forage  

4.   6 

I    2 

Would  change  on  these  farms 


314  BULLETIN  409 

hence  depreciation  and  interest  on  them,  also  increases.  If  wages  increase, 
the  cost  of  pasture  and  buildings  goes  up.  Moreover,  a  change  in  the 
cost  of  feed,  cows,  or  labor  causes  dairymen  to  modify  their  practices.  For 
all  these  reasons,  one  can  never  safely  predict  what  will  be  the  effect  of  a 
change  in  any  one  item  on  the  cost  of  production  as  a  whole. 

PART   II.       CONCERNING    COWS 

Breeds 

Practically  all  of  the  dairy  herds  in  Broome  County  are  of  grade  stock, 
but  most  of  the  cattle  carry  some  Holstein  blood.  Probably  animals  of 
this  breed  are  best  adapted  to  the  production  of  market  milk  under  the 
prevailing  conditions  of  the  region,  chiefly  because  of  their  large  size. 

About  two  per  cent  of  the  dairy  cattle  in  the  county  are  purebred.  In 
January,  1917,  there  were  498  purebred  Holsteins  on  45  farms,  53  pure- 
bred Jerseys  on  7  farms,  40  purebred  Ayrshires  on  2  farms,  and  20  pure- 
bred Guernseys  on  6  farms,  in  Broome  County.  On  3 1  of  the  farms  there 
were  less  than  6  head  of  purebred  dairy  cattle,  and  on  only  8  of  the  149 
farms  were  there  as  many  as  20  purebreds. 

On  the  farms  included  in  this  study  there  were  only  39  registered  cows. 
Excepting  one  Ayrshire  and  one  Dutch  Belted,  these  were  all  Holsteins. 
Records  for  two  purebred  Holstein  herds  containing  52  cows  were  obtained, 
but  were  not  included  in  the  tabulations.  The  market  for  purebred 
dairy  cattle  in  the  southern -tier  counties  is  relatively  undeveloped.  It  is 
no  doubt  due  largely  to  this  fact,  and  to  the  more  extensive  system 
of  dairying,  that  few  purebred  animals  have  been  brought  into  the 
county. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  herds  were  so  largely  of  Holstein  charac- 
teristics, it  was  impossible  to  group  them  in  any  manner  that  would  allow 
a  comparison  of  one  breed  with  another.  There  were  six  herds  of  pure- 
bred Holstein  and  Holstein  grades,  twenty-eight  high-grade  Holstein 
herds,  twenty-eight  herds  comprised  of  Holstein  grades  and  animals  of 
mixed  breeding,  eleven  herds  of  part  Holstein  grades  and  part  Jersey 
grades,  six  herds  of  part  Holstein  grades  and  part  Guernsey  grades,  and 
seventy  herds  of  various  other  combinations  of  breeding.  Most  of  the 
larger  herds  are  Holstein  grades,  while  more  of  the  smaller  herds  are  of 
mixed  breeding. 

Numbers 

The  inventories,  purchases,  sales,  and  deaths  of  cows  are  given  in  detail 
in  table  20  (page  301).  The  average  number  of  cows  was  2058,  and  the 
average  value  was  $65  a  head.  The  number  per  farm  varied  from  6  to 
37,  the  average  being  13.8. 

During  the  year  47  farms  purchased  134  cows  at  an  average  price  of 
$64  a  head.  On  103  farms  there  were  304  heifers  that  freshened  for  the 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING  315 

first  time  during  the  year.  The  average  value  at  the  time  of  freshening 
was  $57  a  head.  About  one  cow  was  purchased  or  raised  for  each  five 
kept.  But  as  the  herds  are  increasing  in  size,  and  as  some  cows  are  sold 
for  production,  only  one  cow  of  each  seven  or  eight  is  actually  replaced 
each  year.  The  estimates  of  131  dairymen  as  to  the  time  cows  remained 
in  the  herd  after  first  freshening  averaged  7.5  years. 

Of  the  cows  disposed  of,  208  were  slaughtered  or  sold  for  slaughter  on 
86  farms,  and  117  were  sold  for  breeding  and  production  on  42  farms.  The 
average  price  received  for  the  former  was  $38,  for  the  latter  $54,  a  head. 


FlG.  55.       GOING   TO    THE    BUTCHER 

The  figures  indicate  that  about  two-thirds  of  the  cows  disposed  of  are 
slaughtered  or  sold  for  slaughter,  and  that  the  remaining  third  go  into 
other  herds  to  be  milked.  But  farmers  do  not  know  exactly  where  the 
cows  they  sell  go.  The  relatively  low  price  of  those  sold  for  production 
suggests  that  probably  some  that  went  to  the  block  have  been  included 
in  this  group. 

During  the  year  38  farms  lost  55  cows  by  death  or  accident.  Of  these 
cows,  49  died,  4  were  killed  on  the  railroad,  and  2  were  killed  by  lightning. 
This  is  2.7  per  cent  of  the  average  number  of  cows.  Receipts  from  the 
sales  of  hides  and  insurance  for  cows  killed  amounted  to  $7.82  per  cow  lost. 

The  average  price  of  all  cows  slaughtered  and  sold  was  $44  a  head. 
This  is  $21  a  head  less  than  the  average  value  of  cows.  The  depreciation 


3i6 


BULLETIN  409 


on  cows  and  the  loss  due  to  death  was  $5722,  or  4.3  per  cent  of  the  average 
value  of  cows.  About  two-thirds  of  this  loss  is  represented  by  the  difference 
between  the  value  of  cows  and  the  price  received  for  those  sold,  and  one- 
third  by  deaths.  Since  the  beef  value  of  cows  is  not  in  proportion  to  their 
value  for  milk,  depreciation  and  losses  due  to  death  are  higher  with  higher- 
priced  cows. 

Average  production 

The  average  production  per  cow  was  5532  pounds  of  milk,  of  which 
5089  pounds  was  sold  and  443  pounds  was  used  on  the  farms,  and  222.2 
pounds  of  butterfat,  of  which  204.4  pounds  was  sold.  About  42  per  cent 
of  the  milk  was  produced  in  the  six  months  beginning  on  October  i,  and 
58  per  cent  in  the  summer  months  from  April  to  September. 

The  income  from  the  sale  of  milk  was  more  evenly  distributed  thruout 
the  year  than  was  the  production.  While  more  milk  was  sold  in  summer, 
the  price  received  was  so  much  less  that  the  returns  did  not  far  exceed  the 
returns  in  the  winter  months. 

The  data  on  average  production  are  given  in  table  30: 

TABLE  30.     PRODUCTION  PER  Cow  AND  ITS  DISTRIBUTION,  2058  Cows 


Number 
of  pounds 
of  milk 
per  cow 

Per  cent 
of  total 
yearly 
production 

Number 
of  pounds 
of 
butterfat 
per  cow 

Receipts 
per  cow 
from 
milk 
sold 

Per  cent 
of  total 
receipts 

Milk  sold: 
May  

614 

12    I 

24  o 

$7  86 

Q  4 

June  

621 

12    2 

24    2 

7   co 

Q  O 

Tulv 

CO  I 

Q    8 

20  o 

6  82 

8    2 

August 

'IQl 

7   7 

16  o 

6  06 

7    1 

September 

"2CC 

7  O 

14   Q 

5QQ 

7   2 

October 

368 

7   2 

ICC 

7    22 

8  7 

November  

-1-2Q 

6  s 

i^  8 

6  78 

8   I 

December  

•24.C 

6  8 

14-    S 

71^ 

8  6 

January    

^S8 

7  o 

H-i 

7    14 

8  6 

February  

^28 

6  4 

12    8 

6    17 

7   4 

March  

^05 

7  8 

IS   4- 

7.1* 

8  <; 

April 

4J.Q 

8  8 

17    S 

6   77 

8  i 

Retail 

T.A. 

O   7 

I    c 

O    7Q 

O   Q 

Total  

c   o8Q 

IOO   O 

2O4   4 

$8l    l6 

IOO   O 

Milk  not  sold  

A  A  -7 

17  8 

7    2S 

• 

Total 

5r-?2 

222    2 

$90  6  1 

Relative  to  the  receipts  on  the  New  York  market,  much  more  milk  was 
produced  during  the  summer  on  the  farms  studied.  The  production  in 
February,  the  lowest  month,  was  53  per  cent  of  the  June  production,  while 
on  the  New  York  market  for  the  same  year  the  amount  received  in  February 
was  92  per  cent  of  the  amount  received  in  June. 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING  317 

Less  milk  is  furnished  the  city  during  July,  August,  or  September  than 
during  January  by  the  zones  nearer  the  city.7  These  zones  are  the  districts 
of  most  intensive  dairying.  The  supply  from  the  further  zones,  however, 
is  much  greater  during  the  summer  months.  Prices  paid  for  milk  to  be 


40 


20 


Jan.        Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr.       May         June       July        Aug.        Sept.        Oct.       Nov. 


Dec. 


FlG.  56.  PRODUCTION  AND  PRICE  FOR  149  BROOME  COUNTY  FARMS  COMPARED  WITH 
RECEIPTS  ON,  AND  WITH  AVERAGE  PRICES  PAID  AT  SHIPPING  STATIONS  TO  PRODUCERS 
FOR,  THE  NEW  YORK  MARKET 

shipped  to  cities  during  these  months  must  be  in  close  accord  with  the 
prices  that  can  be  obtained  from  milk  by  making  it  into  butter,  cheese,  or 
condensed  milk,  else  milk  will  be  attracted  to  the  shipping  stations  from 
the  factories  and  too  great  a  surplus  results.  Production  on  these  Broome 
County  farms  is  more'  typical  of  the  far  zones  than  of  the  districts  nearer 
the  city. 

7  Preliminary  Report  of  the  Joint  Legislative  Committee  on  Dairy  Products,  Livestock,  and  Poultry. 
New  York  Senate  Document,  no.  35,  page  340. 


318 


BULLETIN  409 


The  figures  for  distribution  are  given  in  table  3 1 : 

TABLE  31.  DISTRIBUTION  OF  PRODUCTION,  AND  PRICES  RECEIVED  FOR  MILK, 
ON  149  BROOME  COUNTY  FARMS,  COMPARED  WITH  DISTRIBUTION  OF  RECEIPTS 
IN  THE  NEW  YORK  MARKET  AND  WITH  AVERAGE  PRICES  PAID  AT  SHIJM'INC; 
STATIONS  TO  PRODUCERS  OF  MILK  FOR  NEW  YORK  CITY,  IN  THE  SAME  YEAR 


Month 

Daily 
average 
receipts  on 
New  York 
market,  40- 
quart  cans 

Per  cent 
(June 
figure 
taken- 
as 
100) 

Milk 
sold  by 
149 
farms 
(hundred- 
weight) 

Ter  cent 
(June 
figure 
taken 
as 
100) 

Average 
prices 
paid 
producers 
for  New 
York 
market* 

Average 
prices 
received 
by  149 
farms 

1914: 
May. 

C'l     4CQ 

08 

12  6^5 

OQ 

$1    25 

$i   28 

June 

M8o7 

IOO 

12  ,  77Q 

IOO 

I    20 

I    21 

July      

CI      AC.  A 

04- 

10  312 

81 

I    41 

i   ^6 

,  August  
September  
October  
November  
December  

1915: 
January  

50.058 
49,831 
48,641 
47,852 
48,411 

48,  ^2 

91 
91 
89 

87 
88 

88 

s;  045 
7,294 

7,579 
6,783 
7,108 

7,359 

63 
57 
59 
53 
56 

58 

i-53 
i  .64 
1.76 

2.00 
2.00 

1  94 

i-55 
1.69 
1.96 
2.06 
2.06 

2  .OO 

February  

5O,529 

92 

6,748 

53 

1.85 

1.88 

March 

CQ   QQ6 

QT. 

8  1  18 

00 

64. 

I  76 

i   80 

April 

52   4.IQ 

06 

92AT. 

72 

I    5^ 

I    51 

*As  given  in  The  Milk  Reporter,  Sussex,  New  Jersey,  for  the  respective  months. 

Feeds  used 

The  total  amounts  and  values  of  the  various  kinds  of  feed  used  by 
cows  are  given  in  previous  tables.  The  amounts  per  cow,  per  hundred 
pounds  of  milk  produced,  and  per  pound  of  butterfat  produced,  are  shown 

in  table  32: 

TABLE  32.     FEED  USED  BY  2058  Cows 


Pounds  use 

d 

From 
table 

Total 

Per  cow 

Per  100 

pounds 
of  milk 
produced 

Per  pound 
of  butterfat 
produced 

Grain  

r 

2  895  814  pounds 

I    4.O7 

25    4. 

6  i 

Silage 

2 

3n  T  c  Q     tons 

•z  806 

68   8 

T  7    T 

Other  succulent  feed.  .  . 
Hay 

2 

861.43  tons 
3e  c  •?  A  ?  tons 

837 

3/151 

15.1 

62   4. 

i/  .  1 

3-8 

T  C       C 

Other  dry  forage  

T. 

729.60  tons 

r«K)O 

7OQ 

12    8 

1o-  o 
T>    2 

An  average  of  about  4  pounds  of  milk,  containing  4  per  cent  of  butter- 
fat,  was  produced  per  pound  of  grain  fed.  The  quantities  of  feed  used  on 
these  farms  per  pound  of  butterfat  produced,  check  closely  with  the 
quantities  used  in  experiment  station  herds,  as  shown  in  table  33.  The 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


w    . 

1 


il 

' 


cog 

O^   G 


• 


PQ 


l 


ON  O   O)   ON  O  OO   rO  rOOO  v£> 
IO  CS    IO  M  00  VO    ^00    HH    ID 

0000   M    O 


vO  oo  O   t^ 

l^.    HH     ON    CM 

M   hi   osoo 


•  •  vO     -00 

'         *    t*       *     3 

•  •   O-     •  vo 


•  00   O 

•  >O   O 


oovo  iOi-ioo  O  O 

l^  O   ^-  O   -^-  >O  Tt-00   cO  CM 

CMfOCMtOCMCMtOCMCMCO 


^j-  r<-}  i_i   Q   f\)   ON  O 
ON  O  vO   Tj-  ON  ON  t" 

to  tooo  vo 


fO  CM  O 


CM    IO  CO 

t-^    IO    I-H 

VO 


O  r)- 
ON  CO 
CM 


w 


a2 


0)  00 


PQ 


a  ON 


I? 


.tf 


C      HH* 

'-M   O 

^0)      hH 

l.s 

«t5 

e  ?3 
P 

pq 


320 


BULLETIN  409 


station  herds  used  more  grain  but  less  dry  forage.  Since  grain  contains 
from  two  to  two  and  one-half  times  as  much  energy  as  does  hay,  the  extra 
grain  used  compensates  for  the  smaller  amount  of  dry  forage,  especially 
if  one  allows  for  the  use  of  a  better  grade  of  hay  at  the  stations.  No 
account  could  be  taken  of  pasture,  as  it  was  reported  in  days  but  not  in 
acres  used.  At  the  New  Jersey  and  Massachusetts  stations,  very  little 
pasture  was  used.  These  stations  depended  largely  on  soiling  crops  for 
summer  feeding. 

Labor  required 

An  average  per  cow  of  90.  i  hours  of  human  labor  was  spent  in  milking, 
19.6  hours  in  hauling  the  milk,  and  77.7  hours  in  other  work.  This  is  a 
total  of  187.4  hours  per  cow,  3.38  hours  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk  pro- 
duced, and  '0.85  hour  per  pound  of  butterfat  produced. 

Most  of  the  horse  labor  was  in  hauling  the  milk.  This  amounted  to 
28.4  hours  out  of  a  total  of  33.9  hours  per  cow. 

The  data  on  labor  required  are  given  in  table  34: 

TABLE  34.     LABOR  REQUIRED  FOR  2058  Cows 


Hours  per 
cow* 

Hours  per 
100  pounds 
of  milk 
produced 

Hours  per 
pound  of 
butterfat 
produced 

Human  labor: 
Milking: 
Man  

76.2 

1.  18 

o.  ^4 

Woman  

8.0 

o.  14 

0.04 

Child  

S-Q 

O.  II 

o.o^ 

Total 

QO    I 

i  61 

O   41 

Care  of  cows,  product,  and  utensils: 
Man                                                      .... 

64.  q 

i  .  17 

o  ^o 

Woman              

7.0 

o.  i^ 

o.o^ 

Child                  

2   4 

0.04 

O.OI 

Hauling  feed  

2.O 

0.04 

O.OI 

Other  human  labor  

I  .4 

O.O2 

o.oo 

Total 

167   8 

•7    o^ 

o  76 

Hauling  milk 

IQ    6 

O    -*5 

o  oq 

Total  human  labor     ....        

187.4 

\    38 

o.8s 

Horse  labor: 
Hauling  milk 

28   4 

o  si 

O    I"l 

Other  horse  labor 

c    S 

o  10 

o  02 

Total  horse  labor       

-j-z  q 

0.61 

o  is 

*  Totals  are  given  in  table  7  (page  288). 

Costs  and  returns 

The  total  costs  per  cow  were  $105.43.     Of  this,  53.2  per  cent  was  for 
feed  including  pasture,  22.8  per  cent  was  for  human  labor  except  milk 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


321 


hauling,  and  24  per  cent  was  for  the  remaining  items.  The  total  returns 
per  cow  were  $102.62,  of  which  81.2  per  cent  was  for  milk  sold,  9.4  per  cent 
was  for  manure,  and  9.4  per  cent  was  for  other  items.  The  average  loss 
on  cows  was  $2.81  per  cow.  (Table  35.)  Of  the  149  herds,  there  were 
61,  or  41  per  cent,  that  showed  a  profit  on  cows. 

A  common  question  that  arises  whenever  results  of  cost  studies  are 
Stated,  is,  if  the  actual  loss  is  equal  to  the  apparent  loss,  how  do  such 
producers  remain  in  business?  The  answer  is  that  they  do  one  or  more 
of  the  following  things :  first,  accept  lower  wages  than  the  rate  at  which 
their  time  is  charged;  secondly,  accept  less  than  farm  value  for  roughage 
used;  thirdly,  accept  a  lower  rate  of  interest  on  their  investment  than 
the  rate  charged. 

If  these  farmers  received  interest  on  their  investment,  the  farm  value 
of  farm-grown  roughage,  and  all  other  costs,  they  then  received  11.3 
cents  an  hour  for  human  labor. 

TABLE  35.     AVERAGE  COSTS  AND  RETURNS,  2058  Cows* 


Item 

Per  cow 

Per  cent 
of  total 

Costs: 
Grain  .                                                  

$20  83 

IQ.  7 

Succulent  feed                                            

10.04 

10.4 

Dry  forage  .    .                        .  .          

IQ.  79 

18.8 

Pasture   .  .                  .  .          

4.  S4 

4.  1 

Total  feed 

$56  10 

c-j    2 

Bedding 

o  81 

O    8 

Human  labor 

24   OI 

22    8 

Horse  labor 

o  82 

o  8 

Hauling  milk 

0    57 

Q   I 

Use  of  buildings                                           .                          ... 

4.2^ 

4   O 

Use  of  equipment                  .  .                    .              .  

O   49 

O.4 

Interest  on  cows  . 

7;2^ 

7.  I 

Interest  on  feed  and  supplies  

O.  T\ 

o.  7 

Depreciation  on  cows  

2.78 

2.6 

Bull  service  

' 
0.96 

0.9 

Miscellaneous  

I  .70 

1.6 

Total  costs 

$IO5  4^ 

IOO   O 

Returns  : 
Milk  sold  

$83  .  36 

81.2 

Milk  products  sold  

o.  17 

O.2 

Milk  and  its  products  used 

7  08 

6  Q 

Calves  and  calf  hides 

2   24 

2.2 

Manure  . 

O   67 

9   4 

Miscellaneous.    ... 

O    IO 

O.  I 

Total  returns  

$IO2.62 

IOO.O 

Loss  . 

$2    8l 

;  Totals  are  given  in  table  24  (pages  305  to  308). 


322 


BULLETIN  409 


If  they  received  15  cents  an  hour  for  all  man  time  and  10  cents  an  hour 
for  all  time  of  women  and  children,  and  interest  on  their  investment,  they 
then  received  90  per  cent  of  the  value  of  hay  and  other  roughage  used. 

If  it  be  assumed  that  the  cost  of  feed  and  human  labor  represents  the 
same  proportion  of  the  net  cost  of  producing  milk  when  feed  and  labor 
costs  are  high  as  when  they  are  low,  and  that  the  quantities  found  in  thi? 
study  are  used  in  the  production  of  milk,  then  the  yearly  cost  for  192^ 
price  conditions  may  be  computed  as  shown  in  table  36.  The  cost  with 
the  prices  used  would  be  $3.47  per  hundred  pounds.  The  index  number 
of  the  prices  of  all  commodities  in  the  United  States  for  the  year  1920  was 
243,  as  compared  with  99  for  the  twelve  months  covered  by  this  investiga- 
tion.8 The  average  price  paid  in  1920  to  producers  of  milk  for  the  New 
York  market  was  $3.56  per  hundred  pounds. 9  Considering  that  the  general 
price  level  stood  at  245  as  compared  with  that  of  1914-15,  this  price  of 
$3.56  in  1920  was  about  equal  to  a  price  of  $1.45  in  the  years  covered  by 
this  study.  A  cost  of  $3.47  would  be  approximately  no  greater  when 
compared  with  the  general  price  level  than  a  cost  of  $1.42  in  1914-15. 
In  the  spring  months  of  March,  April,  and  May,  1920,  the  price  of  milk 
was  low  relative  to  feed  and  labor  costs,  but  considering  the  year  as  a 
whole,  it  would  appear  that  prices  paid  to  shippers  of  fluid  milk  for  the 
New  York  market  were  fairly  well  adjusted  to  cost  of  production. 

The  figures  for  costs  and  returns  are  given  in  table  35,  and  the  probable 
cost  in  1920  of  keeping  a  cow  and  producing  milk  is  shown  in  table  36. 

TABLE  36.     PROBABLE  COST  IN  1920  OF  PRODUCING  MILK 


Per  cow 

Per  100  pounds  of  milk 

Amount  used 
by  2058 
cows  in 
I9I4-IS 

Estimated 
price 
in 
1920 

Cost  at, 
estimated 
1920 
prices 

Amount  used 
by  2058 
cows  in 
1914-15 

Cost  at 
estimated 
1920 
prices 

Grain  .  
Silage 

1,407  pounds 
3,806  pounds 
83?  pounds 
3,453  pounds 
709  pounds 
187.4  hours 

$60  .  oo 
7.00 
5.00 

20.00 
IO.OO 

0.35 

$42.21 
13.32 
2.09 
34-53 
3-54 
65.59 

25  .  4  pounds 
68.  8  pounds 
15.  i  pounds 
62  .  4  pounds 
12.8  pounds 
3.38  hours 

$0.762 
0.241 
0.038 
0.624 
0.064 
1  .  183 

Other  succulent  feed  
Hay  

Other  drv  forage 

Human  labor  ,  .  . 

Total  feed  and  human  labor  .  .  . 

$161.28 

$2.912 

Per  cent  of  net  cost,  83.9 


Total  cost  assuming  that  feed  and 
labor  represent  the  same  per  cent 
of  the  net  cost  as  in  1914-15  

$192.23 

$3-471 

Size  of  herd 

Of  the  herds  on  the  farms  studied,  36  per  cent  had  from  six  to  ten 
cows,  26  per  cent  had  more  than  ten  but  not  more  than  fourteen  cows,  18 


8  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.     Monthly  Review,  vol.  12,  no.  5,  May,   1921. 

9  The  Milk  Reporter,  Sussex,  New  Jersey,  January,   1921,  page  16. 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


323 


per  cent  had  more  than  fourteen  but  not  more  than  eighteen  cows,  and  20 
per  cent  had  more  than  eighteen  cows. 

Size  of  farm 

The  size  of  the  dairy  is  governed  largely  by  the  size  of  the  farm.  Farms 
keeping  from  six  to  ten  cows  averaged  1 1 1  acres,  those  with  more  than  ten 
but  not  more  than  fourteen  cows  averaged  145  acres,  those  with  more  than 
fourteen  but  not  more  than  eighteen  cows  averaged  177  acres,  and  those 
with  more  than  eighteen  cows  averaged  238  acres. 

The  average  distance  to  the  milk  station  is  less  from  farms  with  large 
herds  than  from  farms  with  small  herds.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
a  greater  proportion  of  the  large  herds  are  in  the  valleys.  The  combined 
effect  of  a  large  load  and  a  shorter  haul  considerably  reduced  marketing 
charges  for  the  larger  herds. 

Feed  used 

Larger  herds  used  more  grain  and  more  succulent  feed  psr  cow,  but  less 
dry  forage,  than  did  smaller  herds.  Production  was  better,  and  more 
of  the  milk  was  made,  in  winter.  In  other  words,,  a  more  intensive  system 
was  followed.  This  is  to  be  expected  since  many  of  these  farms  are  nearer 

TABLE  37.     RELATION  OF  SIZE  OF  HERD  TO  VARIOUS  FACTORS 


Number  of  cows  per  farm 

6  to  10 

10+  to  14 

14+  to  18 

Over  1  8 

Number  of  farms 

54 
in 

3-7 
33 

21 

61 

461 
8.6 
612.9 

9-7 
11.4 

9 
17 

40 
5,461 
4-i 
223 

L3I3 
2,549 
811 

4,534 
18 

33 

39 
145 
3-8 
3i 

8 

79 

485 
12.4 
623.0 

9i 
16.0 

8 

20 

40 

5,323 
4.0 

213 

i,343 
3,822 

837 
4,225 

22 
56 

27 
177 
2-5 
19 
8 
70 

436 
16.1 

569-1 
8.4 

21.  I 

7 
25 

40 

5,344 
4.0 
216 

1,448 
1,712 
633 
4,777 
9 
33 

29 
238 
31 
16 

13 

55 

676 
23  3 
865.3 
8.0 
29.8 
15 
52 

45 
5,853 
4.0 

233 

1,484 
6,001 

988 
3,468 

20 
69 

Acres  per  farm  
Miles  to  market 

Number  of  farms  on  hills  
Number  of  farms  in  valleys           

Per  cent  of  farms  on  hills                   .... 

Number  of  cows          

Cows  per  farm 

Number  of  cattle  units  
Acres  per  cattle  unit 

Cattle  units  per  farm 

Number  using  purebred  bulls  
Per  cent  using  purebred  bulls         .      .  . 

Per  cent  of  milk  produced  in  six  months, 
October  to  March    

Pounds  of  milk  per  cow  

Test  of  milk 

Pounds  of  butterfa,t  per  cow 

Pounds  of  grain  per  cow            

Pounds  of  silage  per  cow        

Pounds  of  other  succulent  feed  per  cow  . 
Pounds  of  dry  forage  per  cow  

Number  of  farms  feeding  silage 

Per  cent  feeding  silage 

324 


BULLETIN  409 


gj 


t 


B 


111 


II 


31 
£j 


ro  M-i-i 


•O    M 

NO 


M  N  O 

00  \O  r*} 

a  t-M 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


325 


the  market  and  on  land  that  is  better  adapted  to  raising  good  winter  feed. 
Some  of  the  better  production  in  the  large  herds  may  be  due  to  the  use  of 
silage  and  to  better  feeding  generally. 

Data  showing  the  relation  of  the  size  of  herd  to  various  other  factors 
are  given  in  table  37. 

L  abor  required 

The  most  important  influence  of  size  of  herd  is  on  labor  per  cow  and  per 
unit  of  product.  The  higher  farm  wages  are,  the  more  important  this 
influence  becomes. 

In  herds  of  from  six  to  ten  cows,  averaging  8.6  cows,  the  labor  averaged 
217  hours  per  cow  and  3.97  hours  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk.  Less  labor 
was  required  in  each  of  the  groups  of  larger  herds.  In  herds  with  more 
than  eighteen  cows,  averaging  23.3  cows,  the  figures  were  i&i  hours  per 
cow  and  2.75  hours  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk.  The  da^a  are  given 
in  table  38. 

At  1 5  cents  an  hour  the  labor  charges  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk  would 
be  19  cents  more  for  9-cow  herds  than  for  2 3 -cow  herds.  At  30  cents 
an  hour  they  would  be  37  cents  more,  and  at  40  cents  per  hour  they  would 
be  49  cents  more,  per  hundred  pounds.  The  figures  are  given  in  table  39 : 

TABLE  39.    RELATION  OF  SIZE  OF  HERD  TO  LABOR  CHARGE  PER  UNIT  OF  PRODUCT 


Number  of  cows  per  farm 

Hours 
per 
cow* 

Hours 
per  100 

pounds 
of  milk 
produced* 

Labor  charges  at  various  rates 
per  hour 

15 

cents 

20 

cents 

30 

cents 

40 

cents 

8.6  

217 
199 

184 

161 

3-97 
3-73 
3-45 
2-75 

$0.60 
0.56 
0.52 
0.41 

$0.79 

0-75 
0.69 

0-55 

$1.19 

I.  12 
I.O4 
0.82 

$1-59 
1.49 
1.38 

I.  10 

12.4 

16  I 

2T..T. 

Difference  between  9-  and  23-cow  hei 

-ds  

$0.19 

$0.24 

$0.37 

$0.49 

*  Including  time  for  hauling  milk. 

Use  of  buildings 

Much  time  is  often  wasted  in  doing  chores  in  unhandy  barns.  The 
inconvenient  location  o.f  milk  house,  ice  house,  or  silo  increases  labor. 
Barns  with  cows  facing  outward  so  that  a  wagon,  a  sled,  or  a  spreader 
may  be  driven  thru  for  the  manure,  save  labor,  especially  if  the  manure 
is  hauled  daily.  Such  an  arrangement  is  also  more  convenient  when  a 
milking  machine  is  used.  There  is  very  little  work  at  the  mangers  during 
the  pasture  period. 

The  investment  in  buildings  per  cow,  and  the  charge  for  their  use,  was 
highest  in  the  small  herds.  Many  small  herds  were  housed  in  additions 
attached  to  the  main  barn,  which  reduced  the  cost  of  shelter.  The  larger 


BULLETIN  409 


HH  ONOO  10 
CO  HH  CD  CO 


8888 

TJ-iO  O  00 
vO  f*^  r^»  cs 
iO  ON  O  t^ 


CO       00   ONVO   O  OO    CO  fO  ONOO    (N 


00   ON 
MvO 


ON  M 

OvO 


SOOio 
O   O  iO^ 


oor^O 
O  O   1-1  O 


iO  M    to  to 

oo  oo  O  O 


10  O  O  O 

ON  O    O     O 

vd  vd  t^.  d 
ir>  o  t->  M 

ON  ON  t^ 


10      10  r^oo 


t^fCi-ih-iTj- 
oo  -^-  «  i->.  ONO 


vO   to  t-i   l^.  O   iO 

r>s  c<  TJ-OO  to  o 


ON  O  vo   HI   O   O 


8888 

od  vd  d  oi 
oo  10  cooo 


O         O   O   ON  M   cooo  iO  t->.  iO  O   f4~ 
vO         '?t-  ONVO 


Tj-  O   rj-  O   "^  Q 

to  O   «   p  1^  5 

vd 


ON  O 
ON  rs 

(N    (S 


O  «O  1-1  ON  >OOO 
iO>-i  r^oo  ON  r>. 


ON  fOOO    Tj- 
t^.  M   O)   ON  m  tO 


00 

t-, 

00    O    t^  i-i    ON  O 


8  8  8  8 

ON  »ooo  vo 
oo  t^  10  r^ 

ONVO   ^J"vO 


>o  iovo  oo  10  10 


oo  t^-  O  O   Ol  O 

VO     O      HH     O      HH      O 

r-N.  10  r^vo  vo  10 

-       HH      tOCO        ' 

l-l    IO  ON 

CO 


o  oo  HH 


vO  OO  O   t^  ^h 
O»  (N   CO  O  vO 

ON  O  ON  cs  00 


8888 


to  CO  ON 
00   fOON 


wOOvOCNMOO 
CO  ro  ON  rOOO  p-i 


to  ON  cs  O 
iovO  oo  O 


VO    Oj  oo 

oo  i-i   N  ON  ON 


a 


si?  I 


1 


:•»:     : 

•  'o  £  -d    • 


HI  a 

••     W     OH   03     W 


o 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  DAIRYING 


327 


FlG.  57.      A    WELL-LIGHTED,    WELL-VENTILATED,    CLEAN,    AND    COMFORTABLE    STABLE 

herds  were  kept  in  -more  expensive  basements.  This  increased  the  cost 
of  shelter.  For  these  reasons  the  difference  in  the  charge  per  cow  for  the 
use  of  buildings  is  relatively  little  between  small  and  large  herds. 

Costs  and  returns 

The  cost  of  keeping  a  cow  was  less  in  the  larger  herds.  Partly,  because 
of  this,  but  also  because  the  returns  were  better,  there  was  a  greater  profit 
per  cow  in  the  larger  herds.  In  small  herds  the  loss  was  $8  per  cow.  In 
the  medium-sized  herds  the  average  loss  was  $9  per  cow.  But  in  the 
larger  herds  with  an  average  of  23.3  cows  there  was  a  gain » of  about  $7 
per  cow.  The  figures  are  given  in  table  40. 

TABLE  41.     RELATION  OF  SIZE  OF  HERD  TO  COST  OF  PRODUCTION  AND  TO  AVERAGE 

PRICE  FOR  PRODUCT 


Number  of  cows  per  farm 


6  tc 

10 

104- 

to  14 

144 

to  1  8 

Ove 

r  18 

Herd 

Cow 

Herd 

Cow 

Herd 

Cow 

Herd 

Cow 

cost 

cost 

cost 

cost 

cost 

cost 

cost 

cost 

Cost  per  hundred  pounds  of 
milk  sold  
Per  cent  of  cost  (first  group 

$1.82 

$1.80 

$1.81 

$1.81 

$1.74 

$1.72 

$i.S4 

$i-54 

taken  as  100)  

JOO 

100 

99 

101 

96 

96 

85 

86 

Cost  per  pound   of  butter- 

fat  in  milk  sold 

$o  448 

$0  441 

$0  454 

$o  454 

$o  429 

S°  4  '4 

$o  388 

$o  387 

Amount  received   per  hun- 

dred pounds  of  milk  sold  . 

$1 

64 

$i 

62 

$i 

61 

$i 

• 

66 

